Intel UHD Graphics 750 vs AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM
Comparative analysis of Intel UHD Graphics 750 and AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, API support, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel UHD Graphics 750
- Videocard is newer: launch date 10 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- Around 40% higher boost clock speed: 1300 MHz vs 930 MHz
- 698.9x more texture fill rate: 20.80 GTexel/s vs 29.76 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 4.3x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 65 Watt
- Around 19% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1737 vs 1457
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3219 vs 3168
- 3.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 11068 vs 3346
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3219 vs 3168
- 3.3x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 11068 vs 3346
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 2021 vs 21 December 2013 |
| Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz vs 930 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 20.80 GTexel/s vs 29.76 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 65 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1737 vs 1457 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3219 vs 3168 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 11068 vs 3346 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3219 vs 3168 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 11068 vs 3346 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM
- 3x more core clock speed: 900 MHz vs 300 MHz
- 2x more pipelines: 512 vs 256
- Around 13% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 394 vs 348
- 6.1x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 40722 vs 6684
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3112 vs 2899
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3112 vs 2899
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz vs 300 MHz |
| Pipelines | 512 vs 256 |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 394 vs 348 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 40722 vs 6684 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3112 vs 2899 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3112 vs 2899 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 750
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| 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) |
|
|
| Name | Intel UHD Graphics 750 | AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1737 | 1457 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 348 | 394 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6684 | 40722 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2899 | 3112 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3219 | 3168 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 11068 | 3346 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2899 | 3112 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3219 | 3168 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 11068 | 3346 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 641 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel UHD Graphics 750 | AMD Radeon R9 255 OEM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 12.1 | GCN 1.0 |
| Code name | Rocket Lake GT1 | Cape Verde |
| Launch date | 2021 | 21 December 2013 |
| Place in performance rating | 596 | 599 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz | 930 MHz |
| Compute units | 32 | |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 166.4 GFLOPS (1:4) | |
| Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 1331 GFLOPS (2:1) | |
| Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 665.6 GFLOPS | |
| Pipelines | 256 | 512 |
| Pixel fill rate | 10.40 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 20.80 GTexel/s | 29.76 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Floating-point performance | 952.3 gflops | |
| Transistor count | 1,500 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (11_1) |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 73.6 GB / s | |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | |
| Memory clock speed | 4600 MHz | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | |
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare Intel UHD Graphics 750 with others
IntelUHD Graphics 750 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 7800 GT
IntelUHD Graphics 750 vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 1500M
IntelUHD Graphics 750 vs
AMDRadeon R9 255 OEM
IntelUHD Graphics 750 vs
NVIDIAGeForce 945A
IntelUHD Graphics 750 vs
NVIDIAQuadro P600
IntelUHD Graphics 750 vs
NVIDIAT1000
