UHD Graphics 750 vs Radeon R5 (Kaveri)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 (Kaveri) with UHD Graphics 750, including specs and performance data.
Graphics 750 outperforms R5 (Kaveri) by a whopping 270% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1115 | 720 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 21.20 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | Generation 12.1 (2020−2021) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri | Rocket Lake GT1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 4 June 2014 (11 years ago) | 30 March 2021 (4 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 256 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 514 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 626 MHz | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm+++ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 20.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.6656 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | Ring Bus |
| Width | no data | IGP |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | no data | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| Shared memory | + | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1100%
|
24−27
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−186%
|
20−22
+186%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−75%
|
55−60
+75%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−174%
|
70−75
+174%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−244%
|
55−60
+244%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1100%
|
24−27
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−186%
|
20−22
+186%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−75%
|
55−60
+75%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−244%
|
55−60
+244%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−186%
|
20−22
+186%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12−14
+71.4%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−75%
|
55−60
+75%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1100%
|
24−27
+1100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−175%
|
30−35
+175%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−250%
|
21−24
+250%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics 750 is 2150% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- UHD Graphics 750 performs better in 41 tests (79%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (21%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.12 | 4.14 |
| Recency | 4 June 2014 | 30 March 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
UHD Graphics 750 has a 269.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The UHD Graphics 750 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Kaveri) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 (Kaveri) is a notebook graphics card while UHD Graphics 750 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
