AMD Radeon HD 8750M vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A400 and AMD Radeon HD 8750M represent two vastly different eras of GPU design, separated by over a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows a decisive performance gulf, but each card occupies a distinct niche in the benchmark landscape. This analysis breaks down the numbers, the architectural chasm, and what these results mean for potential users.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark between the two GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are stark. The NVIDIA RTX A400 scores 22,844, while the AMD Radeon HD 8750M scores 5,970. This translates to a delta of 282.6%, meaning the RTX A400 is roughly 3.8 times faster in this compute workload. The margin is so large that it effectively places these cards in different performance classes entirely.

Looking at the broader context, the RTX A400’s average benchmark score of 6,078 places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (average score 6,077, delta 0%), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049, +0.5%), and the AMD Radeon 760M (6,019, +1%). This clustering shows that the A400 sits in a tight pack of mid-range performers, with its OpenCL score being the standout outlier that drags its average upward.

The AMD Radeon HD 8750M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 5,970, placing it in the 34th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5,982, -0.2%), the NVIDIA Quadro K620M (5,957, +0.2%), and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (5,955, +0.3%). The HD 8750M is essentially at parity with these older workstation and mobile parts, showing that its performance profile is firmly rooted in the early-2010s era.

The RTX A400’s other benchmarks reveal a more nuanced picture. Its Passmark scores show 5,983 in G3D, 2,557 in GPU Compute, 899 in G2D, and legacy DirectX scores of 87 (DX9), 37 (DX11), 32 (DX10), and 27 (DX12). The high G2D score indicates strong 2D desktop performance, while the compute score suggests decent parallel processing capability. The low legacy DirectX scores are typical for modern architectures that prioritize newer APIs.

The HD 8750M only has one benchmark entry, which limits direct comparison. However, its OpenCL score of 5,970 is remarkably consistent with its average, suggesting that this single data point is representative of its overall capability. The lack of additional benchmark data means we cannot assess its legacy DirectX or 2D performance from this dataset.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins decisively in compute-heavy workloads, as evidenced by the 282.6% lead in OpenCL. This makes it the clear choice for general-purpose GPU computing, scientific simulations, or any task that leverages OpenCL acceleration. Its 2.706 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 96.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth provide the raw throughput needed for these applications.

The RTX A400 also demonstrates strength in modern API support, featuring DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4. This means it can handle contemporary gaming and graphics workloads that require hardware-level ray tracing and mesh shaders. The presence of 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores further cements its position as a modern, feature-complete GPU.

The AMD Radeon HD 8750M’s strengths are more qualitative than quantitative in this dataset. Its 128-bit memory bus provides 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, which is respectable for its era but dwarfed by the A400’s 64-bit GDDR6 implementation. The HD 8750M does support DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, making it capable of running some modern titles, though likely at reduced settings.

For legacy applications, the HD 8750M’s GCN 1.0 architecture may have better compatibility with older software that predates the Ampere architecture. However, the data does not provide specific benchmarks to confirm this. The RTX A400’s Passmark DirectX 9 score of 87 is notably low, which could indicate poor performance in older DirectX 9 titles, but this is speculative without HD 8750M comparison data.

The RTX A400 also wins on efficiency metrics. Its 50 W TDP allows for a single-slot design with no power connectors, requiring only a 250 W suggested PSU. The HD 8750M has no TDP listed, but its 28 nm process node and 775 MHz base clock suggest it would have consumed more power relative to its performance.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA RTX A400 in nearly every measurable aspect. Its 282.6% lead in OpenCL, combined with modern API support and significantly higher memory bandwidth, makes it the superior choice for anyone needing a current, active GPU. The 4 GB GDDR6 memory is four times larger than the HD 8750M’s 1 GB DDR3, which is crucial for modern workloads.

The RTX A400 is the obvious pick for users requiring a workstation GPU with compute capabilities, modern API support, and low power consumption. Its 35th percentile ranking shows it sits above the HD 8750M’s 34th percentile, and its average score of 6,078 versus 5,970 confirms a small but consistent edge. The A400’s active production status and 2024 release date mean it will receive ongoing driver support, while the HD 8750M is end-of-life.

The AMD Radeon HD 8750M should only be considered for legacy system builds or retro computing projects where its 2013-era architecture is specifically required. Its 1024 MB memory and 28.80 GB/s bandwidth are severely limiting for modern applications. The HD 8750M’s nearest rivals are all older workstation parts, suggesting it is best suited for basic 2D tasks or very old games.

For any new purchase or upgrade, the RTX A400 is the only rational choice based on this data. Its performance advantage is overwhelming, and its feature set is generations ahead. The HD 8750M’s only advantage is its 128-bit memory bus, which provides better memory bandwidth per bit compared to the A400’s 64-bit bus, but the GDDR6 vs DDR3 difference negates this entirely.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA RTX A400 than the AMD Radeon HD 8750M in OpenCL?

A: The RTX A400 scores 22,844 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the HD 8750M scores 5,970. This represents a 282.6% advantage for the RTX A400.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each GPU?

A: The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The HD 8750M has 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon HD 8750M support ray tracing?

A: No. The HD 8750M has no RT cores listed in its specifications. The RTX A400 has 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 is listed as "Active" production status, released on 2024-04-15. The AMD Radeon HD 8750M is "End-of-life" and was released on 2013-02-25.

Q: How do the nearest rivals compare for the RTX A400?

A: The RTX A400’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 with an average score of 6,077 (0% delta). The Quadro P2000 is 0.5% behind, and the AMD Radeon 760M is 1% behind.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two GPUs?

A: The RTX A400 uses an 8 nm Samsung process, while the HD 8750M uses a 28 nm TSMC process. The A400 has a transistor density of 43.5M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm² for the HD 8750M.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is immense, reflecting over a decade of semiconductor progress. The NVIDIA RTX A400 is built on the Ampere architecture using the GA107 chip, manufactured on Samsung’s 8 nm process. It contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The AMD Radeon HD 8750M uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Mars chip, built on TSMC’s 28 nm process. Its 950 million transistors occupy a 77 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 12.3M per mm².

The compute resources differ dramatically. The RTX A400 features 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, along with 6 dedicated RT cores and 24 tensor cores. This allows for hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads. The HD 8750M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with no dedicated RT or tensor cores. The RTX A400’s FP32 performance is 2.706 TFLOPS, while the HD 8750M manages only 633.6 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The RTX A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, running at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The HD 8750M uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for just 28.80 GB/s. Despite the A400’s narrower bus, the much faster GDDR6 memory gives it over three times the bandwidth.

API support shows the generational gap. The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, enabling the latest graphics features. The HD 8750M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, which is functionally limited compared to the A400’s capabilities. The A400 also features PCIe 4.0 x8 connectivity, while the HD 8750M uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Power and physical characteristics further separate them. The RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP, fits in a single-slot form factor, requires no power connectors, and measures 163 mm in length. The HD 8750M has no TDP, slot width, or power connector data listed, but its 28 nm process suggests higher power draw relative to performance. The RTX A400 outputs video via 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the HD 8750M has no display output specifications listed.

The RTX A400’s predecessor is Quadro Turing, and its successor is Workstation Ada, showing its place in NVIDIA’s modern workstation lineup. The HD 8750M’s predecessor is London, and its successor is Gem System, indicating it belongs to AMD’s older Solar System generation. These lineage differences reinforce the fundamental gap in capabilities, with the RTX A400 representing current technology and the HD 8750M being a relic of the early 2010s.