Radeon RX 6750 GRE vs RX 5600M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 5600M with Radeon RX 6750 GRE, including specs and performance data.
RX 6750 GRE outperforms RX 5600M by a whopping 109% 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 | 282 | 90 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 46.65 |
| Power efficiency | 10.74 | 13.47 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Navi 10 | Navi 22 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 July 2020 (5 years ago) | 17 October 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $549 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2304 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 1035 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1265 MHz | 2581 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 10,300 million | 17,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 182.2 | 413.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.829 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 144 | 160 |
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 | PCIe 4.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 18 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 432.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | + |
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 outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3 |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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 HD | 84
−102%
| 170−180
+102%
|
| 1440p | 57
−93%
| 110−120
+93%
|
| 4K | 31
−93.5%
| 60−65
+93.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.23 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.99 |
| 4K | no data | 9.15 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
−103%
|
250−260
+103%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
−107%
|
95−100
+107%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 45−50
−100%
|
90−95
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 114
−102%
|
230−240
+102%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
−103%
|
250−260
+103%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
−107%
|
95−100
+107%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
−100%
|
140−150
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
−100%
|
220−230
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
−107%
|
180−190
+107%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
−106%
|
140−150
+106%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
−105%
|
170−180
+105%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 45−50
−100%
|
90−95
+100%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−93.5%
|
300−310
+93.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 112
−105%
|
230−240
+105%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
−103%
|
250−260
+103%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
−103%
|
500−550
+103%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
−107%
|
95−100
+107%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
−106%
|
220−230
+106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
−100%
|
140−150
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
−100%
|
220−230
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
−107%
|
180−190
+107%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
−106%
|
140−150
+106%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
−103%
|
160−170
+103%
|
| Metro Exodus | 59
−103%
|
120−130
+103%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
−105%
|
170−180
+105%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 45−50
−100%
|
90−95
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 104
−102%
|
210−220
+102%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
−93.5%
|
300−310
+93.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 106
−108%
|
220−230
+108%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
−107%
|
95−100
+107%
|
| Dota 2 | 104
−102%
|
210−220
+102%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80
−100%
|
160−170
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
−107%
|
180−190
+107%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
−105%
|
170−180
+105%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 45−50
−100%
|
90−95
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 64
−103%
|
130−140
+103%
|
| Valorant | 115
−109%
|
240−250
+109%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
−100%
|
220−230
+100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
−100%
|
90−95
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
−93.5%
|
300−310
+93.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−97.4%
|
75−80
+97.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−96.4%
|
55−60
+96.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−101%
|
350−400
+101%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
−108%
|
400−450
+108%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 82
−107%
|
170−180
+107%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
−90.5%
|
40−45
+90.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
−104%
|
100−105
+104%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−100%
|
110−120
+100%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 27−30
−107%
|
60−65
+107%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−106%
|
70−75
+106%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
−96.1%
|
100−105
+96.1%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−100%
|
40−45
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
−100%
|
80−85
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
−94.4%
|
35−40
+94.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−103%
|
65−70
+103%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
−108%
|
260−270
+108%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 41
−107%
|
85−90
+107%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−100%
|
40−45
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
−108%
|
150−160
+108%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−100%
|
50−55
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−97.4%
|
75−80
+97.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−105%
|
45−50
+105%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 16−18
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
−95.7%
|
45−50
+95.7%
|
This is how RX 5600M and RX 6750 GRE compete in popular games:
- RX 6750 GRE is 102% faster in 1080p
- RX 6750 GRE is 93% faster in 1440p
- RX 6750 GRE is 94% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.15 | 44.19 |
| Recency | 7 July 2020 | 17 October 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 12 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 250 Watt |
RX 5600M has 66.7% lower power consumption.
RX 6750 GRE, on the other hand, has a 108.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Radeon RX 6750 GRE is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 5600M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 5600M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 6750 GRE 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.
