GeForce GT 750M Mac Edition vs Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with GeForce GT 750M Mac Edition, including specs and performance data.

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
2014
3.04

GT 750M Mac Edition outperforms R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) by a considerable 43% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking771674
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data5.96
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameKaveri SpectreGK107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date14 January 2014 (10 years ago)8 November 2013 (11 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 cores512384
Core clock speed720 MHz926 MHz
Number of transistorsno data1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data50 Watt
Texture fill rateno data29.63
Floating-point processing powerno data0.7112 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data32

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16

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 typeno dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1254 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data80.26 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
CUDA-3.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 3.04
GT 750M Mac Edition 4.34
+42.8%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 1616
GT 750M Mac Edition 1837
+13.7%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD18
−33.3%
24−27
+33.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Battlefield 5 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%
Hitman 3 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−30.4%
30−33
+30.4%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−41%
55−60
+41%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Battlefield 5 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%
Hitman 3 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−30.4%
30−33
+30.4%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27
−29.6%
35−40
+29.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−41%
55−60
+41%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%
Hitman 3 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−30.4%
30−33
+30.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−41%
55−60
+41%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Hitman 3 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
−33.3%
24−27
+33.3%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

This is how R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and GT 750M Mac Edition compete in popular games:

  • GT 750M Mac Edition is 33% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.04 4.34
Recency 14 January 2014 8 November 2013

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has an age advantage of 2 months.

GT 750M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has a 42.8% higher aggregate performance score.

The GeForce GT 750M Mac Edition is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop card while GeForce GT 750M Mac Edition is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M Mac Edition
GeForce GT 750M Mac Edition

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 14 votes

Rate Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 25 votes

Rate GeForce GT 750M Mac Edition on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.