AMD Radeon HD 6950 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Comparison

The GeForce GTX 750 and the Radeon HD 6950 represent two very different approaches to graphics card design, separated by nearly four years of GPU evolution. The data in the database shows a fascinating shift in priorities, contrasting NVIDIA’s focus on efficiency with AMD’s older, brute-force architecture. While the HD 6950 was a high-end part in its day, the benchmark results indicate that the newer GTX 750, despite its entry-level positioning, delivers a decisive performance advantage in the recorded compute workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct comparison between these two cards, using the Geekbench OpenCL test. This is the only metric where both cards share a recorded score, and it paints a clear picture. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 scores 9315 points, while the AMD Radeon HD 6950 scores 6210 points. This results in a 50% delta in favor of the GTX 750, a substantial margin that leaves no ambiguity about which card is faster in this specific workload.

The individual average benchmark scores reinforce this outcome. The GTX 750 has an average benchmark score of 7222 across all its recorded tests, while the HD 6950’s average is 6210, which is based solely on its single OpenCL result. This places the GTX 750 in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the HD 6950 sits slightly lower at the 36th percentile. The performance gap is not a statistical tie; the GTX 750 is measurably ahead in the compute-oriented data.

It is notably the GTX 750 also has recorded scores for Geekbench Metal (4274) and Geekbench Vulkan (8078), tests for which the HD 6950 has no data. This absence is a factor in its lower average score, but it does not change the outcome of the head-to-head OpenCL result. The 50% delta in that single test is the most direct performance comparison available, and it strongly favors the newer NVIDIA architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is stark. The GTX 750 wins the only head-to-head benchmark and also holds a significant advantage in overall average score. Its wins extend across multiple API tests, including Vulkan and Metal, which are entirely absent from the HD 6950’s recorded results. The data suggests the GTX 750 is the more versatile card for modern compute applications.

The HD 6950, on the other hand, has no benchmark wins in the database. Its strengths, if any, do not appear in the recorded compute metrics. Its sole OpenCL score of 6210 is well behind the GTX 750’s 9315. In practical terms, the database shows no workload category where the HD 6950 outperforms the GTX 750. The GTX 750’s higher transistor density and newer architecture appear to provide a decisive edge in the tested scenarios.

The GTX 750’s performance in the Vulkan test (8078) is particularly interesting, as it demonstrates capability with a modern, low-level API. The HD 6950 does not list Vulkan support at all, which makes it ineligible for that entire class of workloads. This is a clear generational advantage for the NVIDIA card in applications that leverage Vulkan.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is immense. The GTX 750 is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip, and fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The HD 6950 uses AMD’s TeraScale 3 architecture, with the Cayman chip, and is built on a larger 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process difference is a primary driver of their distinct characteristics.

The transistor counts tell a story of efficiency versus complexity. The GTX 750 packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The HD 6950 contains 2,640 million transistors on a much larger 389 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 6.8 million per square millimeter. The newer manufacturing process allows the GTX 750 to achieve significantly higher density, which contributes to its performance advantage.

The memory subsystems differ substantially. The GTX 750 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The HD 6950 offers 2048 MB (2 GB) of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly double. This gives the AMD card a theoretical bandwidth advantage, yet it does not translate into a win in the recorded OpenCL benchmark.

Compute resources also heavily favor the HD 6950 on paper. It has 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The GTX 750 has only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The HD 6950’s pixel rate is 25.60 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 70.40 GTexel/s, both higher than the GTX 750’s 17.36 GPixel/s and 34.72 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is listed at 2.253 TFLOPS, compared to the GTX 750’s 1,111.0 GFLOPS.

Despite these raw resource advantages for the AMD card, the GTX 750 wins decisively in the benchmark. This indicates that the Maxwell architecture’s efficiency and instruction handling are far more effective than the older TeraScale 3 design, which appears to underutilize its massive shader count. The API support also differs, with the GTX 750 supporting DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the HD 6950 is limited to DirectX 11.2 (11_0), OpenGL 4.4, and has no Vulkan support listed.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 has an average benchmark score of 7222, while the AMD Radeon HD 6950 has an average of 6210.

Q: How does the GTX 750 perform in the OpenCL test compared to the HD 6950?

A: The GTX 750 scores 9315 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 50% higher than the HD 6950’s score of 6210.

Q: Does the HD 6950 support the Vulkan API?

A: No, the database lists no Vulkan support for the AMD Radeon HD 6950, while the GTX 750 supports Vulkan 1.4.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6950 has 160.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is double the GTX 750’s 80.19 GB/s.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 750 has a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm², while the HD 6950 has a density of 6.8 million per mm².

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6950 has 1408 shading units, compared to the GTX 750’s 512 shading units.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 is the superior choice for anyone focused on the compute workloads represented by the Geekbench tests. Its 50% lead in OpenCL performance and its higher average score make it the clear winner in this comparison. The GTX 750’s support for modern APIs like Vulkan and DirectX 12 also gives it a significant functional advantage over the HD 6950.

The AMD Radeon HD 6950, despite its larger memory pool, wider bus, and vastly higher theoretical compute resources, cannot overcome the architectural efficiency of the Maxwell-based GTX 750. The HD 6950’s raw specifications, including its 2.253 TFLOPS FP32 performance, do not translate into real-world benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its only advantage lies in its specifications, not its measured performance.

For a user deciding between these two, the GTX 750 is the logical pick based on the evidence. It offers better performance, lower power consumption (55 W TDP versus 200 W), and support for newer software standards. The HD 6950’s higher bandwidth and shader count are interesting on paper, but the benchmark results indicate they do not matter in practice. The GTX 750 wins every measurable performance category in the database.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards, as recorded in the database:

• Architecture: NVIDIA Maxwell (GM107) versus AMD TeraScale 3 (Cayman).
• Process Node: 28 nm versus 40 nm.
• Transistors: 1,870 million versus 2,640 million.
• Die Size: 148 mm² versus 389 mm².
• Transistor Density: 12.6 million per mm² versus 6.8 million per mm².
• Memory Size: 1024 MB versus 2048 MB (2 GB).
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus 256 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: 80.19 GB/s versus 160.0 GB/s.
• Shading Units: 512 versus 1408.
• TMUs: 32 versus 88.
• ROPs: 16 versus 32.
• Pixel Rate: 17.36 GPixel/s versus 25.60 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: 34.72 GTexel/s versus 70.40 GTexel/s.
• FP32: 1,111.0 GFLOPS versus 2.253 TFLOPS.
• TDP: 55 W versus 200 W.
• Power Connectors: None versus 2x 6-pin.
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 550 W.
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16.
• Display Outputs: 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a versus 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) versus 11.2 (11_0).
• OpenGL Support: 4.6 versus 4.4.
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 versus none.
• Dimensions: 145 mm length versus 286 mm length, 126 mm height, 42 mm width.
• Slot Width: Single-slot versus Dual-slot.
• Release Date: 2014-02-17 versus 2010-12-13.