Intel UHD Graphics 750 vs AMD Radeon R9 M470
Comparative analysis of Intel UHD Graphics 750 and AMD Radeon R9 M470 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, API support, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, 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), 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 8 year(s) 8 month(s) later
- Around 30% higher boost clock speed: 1300 MHz vs 1000 MHz
- 433.3x more texture fill rate: 20.80 GTexel/s vs 48 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- Around 16% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 355 vs 307
- Around 78% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3219 vs 1804
- 6.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 11068 vs 1674
- Around 78% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3219 vs 1804
- 6.6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 11068 vs 1674
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 2021 vs 15 May 2016 |
| Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz vs 1000 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 20.80 GTexel/s vs 48 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 355 vs 307 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3219 vs 1804 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 11068 vs 1674 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3219 vs 1804 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 11068 vs 1674 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R9 M470
- 3x more core clock speed: 900 MHz vs 300 MHz
- 3x more pipelines: 768 vs 256
- Around 35% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2331 vs 1729
- 7.4x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 47924 vs 6466
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz vs 300 MHz |
| Pipelines | 768 vs 256 |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 2331 vs 1729 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 47924 vs 6466 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel UHD Graphics 750
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R9 M470
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel UHD Graphics 750 | AMD Radeon R9 M470 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1729 | 2331 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 355 | 307 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6466 | 47924 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 35.179 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 543.594 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.995 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 29.322 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2899 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3219 | 1804 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 11068 | 1674 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2899 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3219 | 1804 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 11068 | 1674 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 641 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel UHD Graphics 750 | AMD Radeon R9 M470 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 12.1 | GCN 2.0 |
| Code name | Rocket Lake GT1 | Strato |
| Launch date | 2021 | 15 May 2016 |
| Place in performance rating | 763 | 764 |
| Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1300 MHz | 1000 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 | 768 |
| Pixel fill rate | 10.40 GPixel/s | |
| Texture fill rate | 20.80 GTexel/s | 48 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | |
| Floating-point performance | 1,536 gflops | |
| Transistor count | 2,080 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 12.0 (12_0) |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | |
| Laptop size | large | |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB / s | |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | |
| Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| DirectCompute 5.0 | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare Intel UHD Graphics 750 with others
IntelUHD Graphics 750 vs
ATIRadeon X600 SE
IntelUHD Graphics 750 vs
ATIMobility Radeon X1700
IntelUHD Graphics 750 vs
NVIDIATesla C2070
IntelUHD Graphics 750 vs
NVIDIAGRID K520
IntelUHD Graphics 750 vs
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M
IntelUHD Graphics 750 vs
AMDRadeon R9 M470
