AMD Radeon HD 6750 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon HD 6750 and NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 6750
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 10 month(s) later
- 5.6x more pipelines: 720 vs 128
- 2.6x better floating-point performance: 1,008.0 gflops vs 387.1 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 40 nm vs 55 nm
- Around 74% lower typical power consumption: 86 Watt vs 150 Watt
- Around 75% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1043 vs 597
- 4.9x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 273 vs 56
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3378 vs 3108
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3378 vs 3108
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 21 January 2011 vs 4 March 2009 |
Pipelines | 720 vs 128 |
Floating-point performance | 1,008.0 gflops vs 387.1 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm vs 55 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 86 Watt vs 150 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1043 vs 597 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 273 vs 56 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3378 vs 3108 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 3351 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3378 vs 3108 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 3351 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
- Around 87% higher texture fill rate: 47.2 billion / sec vs 25.2 GTexel / s
- Around 5% higher memory clock speed: 1100 MHz vs 1050 MHz
Texture fill rate | 47.2 billion / sec vs 25.2 GTexel / s |
Memory clock speed | 1100 MHz vs 1050 MHz |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon HD 6750
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon HD 6750 | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1043 | 597 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 273 | 56 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 8.039 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 544.041 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.867 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 20.664 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 91.074 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2100 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3378 | 3108 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 3351 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2100 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3378 | 3108 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 3351 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon HD 6750 | NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Tesla |
Code name | Juniper | G92B |
Design | AMD Radeon HD 6000 Series | |
Launch date | 21 January 2011 | 4 March 2009 |
Launch price (MSRP) | $49.99 | $199 |
Place in performance rating | 1045 | 1048 |
Price now | $49.99 | $114.99 |
Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Value for money (0-100) | 33.46 | 9.91 |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | |
Floating-point performance | 1,008.0 gflops | 387.1 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
Pipelines | 720 | 128 |
Texture fill rate | 25.2 GTexel / s | 47.2 billion / sec |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 86 Watt | 150 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,040 million | 754 million |
Core clock speed | 1836 MHz | |
CUDA cores | 128 | |
Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | 2x DVI, Two Dual Link DVI |
DisplayPort support | ||
Dual-link DVI support | ||
Eyefinity | ||
HDMI | ||
VGA | ||
Audio input for HDMI | S / PDIF | |
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Bus support | PCIe 2.0 x16 | |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | 170 mm | 9" (228.6 mm) (22.9 cm) |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 6-pin |
Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | |
SLI options | 2-way3-way | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 11 | 10.0 |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 3.0 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 73.6 GB / s | 70.4 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1050 MHz | 1100 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Technologies |
||
AMD Eyefinity | ||
CrossFire | ||
3D Vision | ||
CUDA | ||
SLI |