AMD Radeon 760M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits these two GPUs along very clear generational lines. The AMD Radeon 760M wins every recorded head-to-head contest, and it does so by margins that are not close. In the two shared tests, the GeForce GTX 750 never takes a single victory. The database records zero wins for the NVIDIA card and two wins for the AMD part.

The Radeon 760M dominates in compute-oriented workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 20,255 more than doubles the GTX 750's 9,315, a 54% advantage. That is the kind of gap that shows up in real tasks like rendering, physics simulation, and general GPU compute, where raw shader throughput and modern architecture matter more than legacy optimization.

The Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The Radeon 760M posts 30,336 against the GTX 750's 8,078, a 73.4% lead. Vulkan is the modern low-level graphics API, and this margin indicates the AMD part is substantially better equipped for current and future game engines that rely on explicit multi-threaded command submission. The GTX 750's Maxwell architecture, while competent in its day, simply does not have the hardware features to compete in this API.

Looking at the broader database picture, the GTX 750 sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs with an average benchmark score of 7,222. The Radeon 760M sits at the 35th percentile with an average of 6,019. That is a curious inversion: the newer part wins every direct comparison yet holds a lower overall percentile. This is because the Radeon 760M's average pulls in results from tests like PassMark DirectX 9 at 65, DirectX 10 at 19, and DirectX 11 at 52, where an integrated part with shared system memory and driver overhead can score poorly. The GTX 750 has no such low-end results in the database, only its three Geekbench scores.

For a builder deciding between these two, the use case split is straightforward. The Radeon 760M is the choice for anyone running modern APIs, compute workloads, or games that support Vulkan or DirectX 12 Ultimate. The GTX 750 has no recorded wins anywhere, so there is no workload category in the data where it comes out ahead. The only reason to consider it is if you are constrained to a legacy PCIe 3.0 platform and need a discrete card with its own dedicated memory, but even then the performance data does not favor it.

Architecture Differences

These two GPUs come from different eras and different design philosophies. The GTX 750 uses the GM107 chip on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The Radeon 760M uses the Phoenix chip on AMD's RDNA 3.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 4 nm node. It contains 25,390 million transistors across a 178 mm² die, for a density of 142.6 million per square millimeter. That is a density advantage of more than an order of magnitude, and it explains how AMD fits so much more capability into a similar physical footprint.

The memory subsystem is the starkest difference. The GTX 750 has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 760M uses system shared memory, with its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system dependent. This means the AMD part's performance is heavily influenced by the host system's RAM configuration, while the NVIDIA card has predictable, fixed bandwidth. In the recorded benchmarks, the Radeon 760M still wins decisively despite this dependency, which speaks to the efficiency of its architecture.

Shading units and texture units are identical on paper: 512 shading units and 32 TMUs on both parts. The ROP count is also identical at 16. But the clock speeds diverge massively. The GTX 750 runs at a base 1020 MHz with a boost of 1085 MHz. The Radeon 760M runs at a base of 800 MHz but boosts to 2599 MHz. That boost behavior drives its pixel rate to 41. The GTX 750 manages only 17.36 GPixel/s. The texture rate difference is 83.17 GTex/s on the AMD side versus 34.72 GTex/s on the NVIDIA side.

The feature set is where the Radeon 760M pulls ahead in ways that matter for future software. It has 8 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2, plus FP16 at 5.323 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio to FP32. The GTX 750 supports DirectX 12 at the older 11_0 level, has no ray tracing cores, and lists no FP16 data. Its FP32 output is 1,111 GFLOPS, compared to 5.323 TFLOPS on the AMD part. The GTX 750 does support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, matching the Radeon 760M's API versions there is no difference in that regard.

Power consumption favors AMD. The GTX 750 is rated at 55W TDP and lists a suggested PSU of 250W. The Radeon 760M is rated at 15W, uses no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed. The NVIDIA card is PCIe 3.0 x16, the AMD part is PCIe 4.0 x8. Both are single-slot, though the Radeon 760M is an IGP with motherboard dependent display outputs. The GTX 750 has 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 has the higher average at 7,222, while the AMD Radeon 760M averages 6,019. However, the Radeon 760M wins every direct head-to-head test, so the average alone is misleading.

Q: Is the Radeon 760M a discrete graphics card?

A: No. The Radeon 760M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 15W TDP, system shared memory, and motherboard dependent display outputs. The GTX 750 is a discrete card with 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory and its own power delivery.

Q: How much faster is the Radeon 760M in Vulkan?

A: The Radeon 760M scores 30,336 in Geekbench Vulkan compared to the GTX 750's 8,078, a 73.4% advantage. This is the largest margin in any shared benchmark between the two.

Q: Does the GTX 750 support ray tracing?

A: No. The GTX 750 has no ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 at the older 11_0 feature level. The Radeon 760M has 8 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The Radeon 760M packs 142.6 million transistors per square millimeter on a 4 nm process, while the GTX 750 has 12.6 million per square millimeter on 28 nm. That is roughly an 11x density advantage for the AMD part.

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The GTX 750 has fixed 80.19 GB/s from its dedicated GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The Radeon 760M's bandwidth is system dependent, so it varies with the host machine's memory configuration.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The GTX 750 uses the GM107 chip on Maxwell architecture from the GeForce 700 generation, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Radeon 760M uses the Phoenix chip on RDNA 3.0 from the Navi III IGP generation, fabricated on a 4 nm process, also at TSMC. Transistor counts are 1,870 million versus 25,390 million. Die size is 148 mm² versus 178 mm². Density is 12.6 million per square millimeter versus 142.6 million.

Base clocks are 1020 MHz for NVIDIA and 800 MHz for AMD. Boost clocks are 1085 MHz versus 2599 MHz. Memory is 1024 MB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth for the GTX 750, versus system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth for the Radeon 760M. Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs are identical at 512, 32, and 16 respectively, but the Radeon 760M adds 8 ray tracing cores.

Pixel rate is 17.36 GPixel/s versus 41.58 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 34.72 GTexel/s versus 83.17 GTexel/s. FP32 output is 1,111 GFLOPS versus 5.323 TFLOPS. The Radeon 760M also lists FP16 at 5.323 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the GTX 750 has no FP16 data. TDP is 55W versus 15W. The GTX 750 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and has 2x DVI plus 1x mini-HDMI outputs. The Radeon 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and has motherboard dependent outputs. DirectX support is 12 (11_0) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). OpenGL and Vulkan versions match at 4.6 and 1.4. The GTX 750 is end-of-life, released February 17, 2014, with a successor in the GeForce 900 series. The Radeon 760M is active, released January 30, 2024, with no successor listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct comparisons between these GPUs, and both go to the Radeon 760M. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD part scores 20,255 against the GTX 750's 9,315. That is a 54% delta, meaning the GTX 750 is trailing by more than half. OpenCL is a cross-platform compute API, so this result reflects raw compute throughput. The Radeon 760M's 5.323 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 1,111 GFLOPS explains the gap.

The second is Geekbench Vulkan, where the Radeon 760M scores 30,336 against 8,078. The delta is 73.4%, the largest margin in any shared test. Vulkan is the modern low-overhead graphics API used by many current game engines. The Radeon 760M's DirectX 12 Ultimate support and ray tracing cores give it architectural advantages that show up clearly here. The GTX 750's Maxwell architecture, designed for an era before these APIs matured, cannot keep pace.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides context for these scores. The GTX 750's average of 7,222 places it 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7,203, 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE at 7,171, and 0.7% ahead of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 at 7,170. Interestingly, it also sits just 0.9% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 at 7,157, a much higher-tier card that likely suffers from a limited benchmark sample. The Radeon 760M's average of 6,019 puts it 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6400 at 6,001, 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6,000, and 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996. It trails the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6,049 by 0.5%.

The Radeon 760M's other benchmark results paint a mixed picture. Its PassMark G3D score is 5,310, and its PassMark G2D score is 890. Compute-focused tests show 2,840 in PassMark GPU compute. But the legacy DirectX tests are low: 65 in DirectX 9, 52 in DirectX 11, 25 in DirectX 12, and 19 in DirectX 10. These low scores drag down its average and explain why its percentile rank is lower than the GTX 750 despite winning every head-to-head. The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result is 400, a modern test where the architecture shines.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon 760M is the superior GPU in every direct comparison recorded. It wins both shared benchmarks by margins of 54% and 73.4%, and it brings modern features like ray tracing, DirectX 12 Ultimate, and PCIe 4.0 that the GTX 750 simply lacks. For anyone building or upgrading a system today, the Radeon 760M is the only sensible choice among these two.

The GTX 750's higher average benchmark score of 7,222 versus 6,019 is a statistical artifact. It has only three benchmark entries, all Geekbench tests, and no low-end legacy results to drag it down. The Radeon 760M has ten entries, including several PassMark legacy tests where it scores poorly. The head-to-head results are unambiguous, and those are what matter for real-world performance.

There is one narrow scenario where the GTX 750 remains relevant: systems that require a discrete card with dedicated memory and a fixed 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, on a PCIe 3.0 platform, with a 55W power envelope. The Radeon 760M's shared memory architecture means its performance depends on the host system's RAM, and its IGP form factor requires a motherboard with compatible display outputs. But even in that scenario, the recorded data shows no workload where the GTX 750 wins.

For a builder prioritizing modern game support, compute performance, or energy efficiency, the Radeon 760M's 15W TDP against the GTX 750's 55W makes it the obvious pick. The 4 nm process, 142.6 million transistors per square millimeter, and 25,390 million total transistors give it a generational advantage that no amount of legacy optimization can overcome. The GTX 750 is end-of-life, while the Radeon 760M is an active product. The verdict is straightforward: choose the Radeon 760M unless you have a hard requirement for a discrete card with its own memory, and even then, understand that you are accepting a significant performance penalty.