AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a decisive generational shift. The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the clear performance leader in shared workloads, outscoring the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 by a wide margin in every common test. Benchmark results indicate the RX 6400 is approximately 70.9% ahead of the GTX 750 in Geekbench OpenCL and 50.7% ahead in Geekbench Vulkan. For any user prioritizing raw compute or modern API performance, the RX 6400 is the only rational choice from this comparison.

The GTX 750, however, retains a distinct position. Its average benchmark score of 7222 actually exceeds the RX 6400's 6001 average, which is a curious inversion given the head-to-head results. This suggests the GTX 750's strength lies in a more consistent performance profile across a broad range of legacy workloads, whereas the RX 6400's recorded scores are more concentrated in specific modern tests. The GTX 750 also sits at the 40th percentile of all GPUs in the database, placing it above the RX 6400's 35th percentile.

Who should pick which? A user running older DirectX 9 or DirectX 10 applications, or anyone seeking a card whose aggregate database score ranks higher, would find the GTX 750 more aligned with their needs. A user targeting modern DirectX 12 Ultimate workloads, ray tracing, or high-throughput compute tasks should select the RX 6400. The RX 6400 also provides four times the memory capacity, which matters for texture-heavy modern titles. The verdict is not about which card is better in absolute terms, but which environment each card serves.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different eras and design philosophies. The GTX 750 uses the GM107 chip on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The RX 6400 uses the Navi 24 chip on AMD's RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The transistor counts reflect this leap: 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 RX 6400 crams 5,400 million transistors into a smaller 107 mm² die, achieving 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 6400 thus holds more than four times the transistor density, a direct consequence of the much newer fabrication node.

Core configurations differ substantially. The GTX 750 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The RX 6400 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, effectively doubling the pixel throughput capability. The RX 6400 also introduces 12 ray tracing cores, a feature class entirely absent from the GTX 750. Neither card includes tensor cores.

Clock behavior is another major divider. The GTX 750 runs at a base clock of 1020 MHz with a boost of 1085 MHz. The RX 6400 boosts to 2321 MHz, more than double the GTX 750's boost clock, with a base of 1923 MHz and a game clock of 2039 MHz. The memory subsystems are also built differently. The GTX 750 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yet still reaches 128.0 GB/s thanks to faster memory clocks. The RX 6400's effective memory speed of 16 Gbps dwarfs the GTX 750's 5 Gbps effective rate.

API support separates the pair sharply. The GTX 750 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12 Ultimate designation on the RX 6400 implies support for features like ray tracing and variable rate shading, which the GTX 750 cannot offer. Both cards share the same OpenGL and Vulkan versions, which is notable given the age gap.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The shared test suite is small but revealing. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6400 scores 32011 against the GTX 750's 9315, a delta of 70.9% in favor of AMD. This is a massive margin, indicating the RX 6400's compute throughput is on a different level entirely. The FP32 figures corroborate this: the RX 6400 delivers 3.565 TFLOPS against the GTX 750's 1,111.0 GFLOPS, roughly a threefold advantage. The RX 6400 also has FP16 capability at 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1), a feature the GTX 750 lacks entirely.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 6400 scores 16372 against the GTX 750's 8078, a delta of 50.7%. The margin narrows compared to OpenCL, but the RX 6400 still holds a commanding lead. The GTX 750's Vulkan score of 8078 is actually close to its OpenCL result, suggesting the older architecture scales similarly across these APIs. The RX 6400's Vulkan score is roughly half its OpenCL score, indicating the newer architecture extracts more from compute-oriented workloads than from graphics-oriented ones.

The RX 6400's broader benchmark suite shows additional context. Its Passmark G3D score is 7673, its Passmark G2D score is 722, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 2812. The Passmark DirectX tests reveal a peculiar pattern: DirectX 9 scores 93, DirectX 10 scores 54, DirectX 11 scores 70, and DirectX 12 scores 30. The RX 6400 performs best on legacy DirectX 9, and worst on DirectX 12, which is counterintuitive for a modern card. The GTX 750 lacks these specific Passmark entries in the database, so direct comparison is impossible, but the RX 6400's average benchmark score of 6001 still falls below the GTX 750's 7222.

Specification Differences

The recorded data shows the following fields where the two cards differ:

• Chip: GM107 (NVIDIA) versus Navi 24 (AMD)
• Architecture: Maxwell versus RDNA 2.0
• Generation: GeForce 700 versus Navi II (RX 6000)
• Process Node: 28 nm versus 6 nm
• Transistors: 1,870 million versus 5,400 million
• Die Size: 148 mm² versus 107 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.6M / mm² versus 50.5M / mm²
• Base Clock: 1020 MHz versus 1923 MHz
• Boost Clock: 1085 MHz versus 2321 MHz
• Game Clock: absent versus 2039 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 2000 MHz (16 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 1024 MB versus 4 GB
• Memory Type: GDDR5 versus GDDR6
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 80.19 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s
• Shading Units: 512 versus 768
• TMUs: 32 versus 48
• ROPs: 16 versus 32
• RT Cores: absent versus 12
• Pixel Rate: 17.36 GPixel/s versus 74.27 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 34.72 GTexel/s versus 111.4 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,111.0 GFLOPS versus 3.565 TFLOPS
• FP16: absent versus 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: 55 W versus 53 W
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x4
• Display Outputs: 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a versus 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2)
• Release Date: 2014-02-17 versus 2022-01-18
• Predecessor: GeForce 600 versus Navi
• Successor: GeForce 900 versus Navi III
• Launch MSRP: 119 USD versus 159 USD

The TDP figures are nearly identical at 55 W and 53 W, and both cards require no power connectors with a suggested PSU of 250 W. Both are single-slot designs. The GTX 750 has a recorded length of 145 mm (5.7 inches), while the RX 6400's dimensions are not listed. Both cards have a production status of end-of-life.

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 RX 6400 averages 6001. The GTX 750 also ranks at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, above the RX 6400's 35th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the RX 6400 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RX 6400 scores 32011 versus the GTX 750's 9315, a delta of 70.9% in favor of AMD.

Q: Does the GTX 750 support ray tracing?

A: No. The GTX 750 has no ray tracing cores. The RX 6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores.

Q: What are the memory capacities of each card?

A: The GTX 750 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The RX 6400 boosts to 2321 MHz, while the GTX 750 boosts to 1085 MHz. The RX 6400's base clock of 1923 MHz also exceeds the GTX 750's boost clock.

Q: What DirectX versions do the cards support?

A: The GTX 750 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6400 wins decisively in modern compute and graphics workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 32011 is 70.9% higher than the GTX 750's 9315, and its Geekbench Vulkan score of 16372 is 50.7% higher. The RX 6400's FP32 output of 3.565 TFLOPS, its FP16 capability at 7.130 TFLOPS, and its 12 ray tracing cores make it the card for anyone running current-generation games, DirectX 12 Ultimate titles, or compute-heavy applications. Its 4 GB memory buffer and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth also handle modern texture sets that would exceed the GTX 750's 1024 MB capacity.

The GTX 750 wins in aggregate database standing and legacy workload consistency. Its average benchmark score of 7222 exceeds the RX 6400's 6001, and its 40th percentile rank beats the RX 6400's 35th. The GTX 750's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 at a 0.9% delta, a sign that its score profile clusters tightly with capable mid-range cards. The RX 6400, by contrast, sits within 0.3% of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, a workstation-class part. The GTX 750's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is also more compatible with older motherboards than the RX 6400's PCIe 4.0 x4, which could bottleneck on systems lacking PCIe 4.0 support.

The RX 6400's Passmark results reveal a nuanced picture. Its DirectX 9 score of 93 is its best Passmark API result, while DirectX 12 drops to 30. This suggests the RX 6400 is not uniformly superior in legacy scenarios. The GTX 750, with no recorded Passmark scores, cannot be directly compared there, but its higher average benchmark score implies broader strength across unlisted tests. Users running old DirectX 9 applications might find the RX 6400 unexpectedly capable, while those running DirectX 12 titles might see the RX 6400 underperform relative to its compute-oriented headline numbers.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, so neither is a future-proof investment. The RX 6400's launch MSRP of 159 USD was higher than the GTX 750's 119 USD, but the performance gap in modern workloads justifies the difference for current software. The GTX 750 remains a viable option for legacy systems, low-resolution gaming, or applications that reward consistent cross-API behavior. The data does not support a single winner; it supports two cards serving different eras of software.