NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 leads with an average benchmark score of 7222, while the NVIDIA RTX A400 trails at 6078. This places the GTX 750 in the 40th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the RTX A400's 35th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in raw compute performance?

A: The RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is more than double the GTX 750's 1,111.0 GFLOPS. The RTX A400 also offers FP16 at 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), a capability the GTX 750 does not list.

Q: What are the memory configurations of each card?

A: The GTX 750 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. Despite the narrower bus, the RTX A400 provides higher bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is more power efficient?

A: The RTX A400 has a 50 W TDP, lower than the GTX 750's 55 W TDP. Both cards are single-slot designs with no power connectors and both recommend a 250 W power supply.

Q: Do both cards support the same modern APIs?

A: No. The GTX 750 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, making it the more future-proof option for API features.

Q: What is the production status of each card?

A: The GTX 750 is end-of-life, released in 2014, while the RTX A400 is active, released in 2024. The GTX 750's launch MSRP was 119 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits cleanly between legacy compatibility and modern capability. The GTX 750 wins on average benchmark score, sitting at 7222 versus the RTX A400's 6078. It also holds a higher overall percentile ranking at 40 compared to 35. For users running older workloads or comparing across a broad database of GPUs, the GTX 750's aggregate position is stronger.

The RTX A400 wins every head-to-head benchmark recorded. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 22844 against the GTX 750's 9315, a 59.2% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 22237 against 8078, a 63.7% advantage. These are decisive margins in compute-oriented tasks. The RTX A400 also brings features the GTX 750 lacks entirely: 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores. That makes it the only option here for ray-traced workloads or tensor-based acceleration.

The GTX 750 counters with a stronger rasterization profile relative to its era. Its texture rate of 34.72 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 17.36 GPixel/s are respectable for a 28 nm Maxwell part, though the RTX A400 exceeds both at 42.29 GTexel/s and 28.19 GPixel/s. The GTX 750's advantage is not in peak throughput but in its broader benchmark standing, which reflects a more consistent performance across the database's test suite.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 750 uses the GM107 chip built on TSMC's 28 nm process, part of the Maxwell architecture. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip built on Samsung's 8 nm process, part of the Ampere architecture. It contains 8,700 million transistors across a 200 mm² die, achieving a density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. That is more than three times the transistor density, a direct result of the newer process node.

The core configurations differ substantially. The GTX 750 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The RTX A400 trades texture units for more shaders, and it adds dedicated hardware: 6 RT cores and 24 tensor cores. These are absent on the Maxwell part. The RTX A400 also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the GTX 750 lists no FP16 capability.

The memory architecture reflects different design goals. The GTX 750 uses GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus, while the RTX A400 uses GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus. The RTX A400 compensates with faster memory clocks, 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), resulting in higher bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. The RTX A400 also has four times the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 1024 MB.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification field. The GTX 750 runs at a base clock of 1020 MHz and a boost clock of 1085 MHz. The RTX A400 runs at a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1762 MHz. The RTX A400's boost clock is 677 MHz higher.

Memory capacity: 1024 MB versus 4 GB. Memory type: GDDR5 versus GDDR6. Bus width: 128 bit versus 64 bit. Bandwidth: 80.19 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. The RTX A400's narrower bus is offset by faster memory.

Shading units: 512 versus 768. TMUs: 32 versus 24. ROPs: 16 versus 16, the only matching compute unit count. Pixel rate: 17.36 GPixel/s versus 28.19 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 34.72 GTexel/s versus 42.29 GTexel/s. FP32: 1,111.0 GFLOPS versus 2.706 TFLOPS. The RTX A400 has more than double the FP32 throughput.

TDP: 55 W versus 50 W. The RTX A400 draws less power despite far higher compute output. Both are single-slot with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. The RTX A400 uses a newer standard but fewer lanes.

Display outputs: 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a on the GTX 750, versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on the RTX A400. The RTX A400 supports more modern display connectivity. Physical dimensions: the GTX 750 is 145 mm (5.7 inches) long with no listed height; the RTX A400 is 163 mm (6.4 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high. DirectX support: 12 (11_0) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). The RTX A400 is the only one with ray tracing and mesh shader support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two tests, and the RTX A400 dominates both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A400 scores 22844 against the GTX 750's 9315. The delta is 59.2%, meaning the GTX 750 trails by more than half. This is a compute-oriented test that stresses raw shader throughput, memory bandwidth, and driver efficiency. The RTX A400's 768 shading units, higher clocks, and faster GDDR6 memory explain the large gap.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the RTX A400 scores 22237 against the GTX 750's 8078. The delta is even larger at 63.7%. Vulkan workloads often benefit from newer architecture features and better low-level driver optimization. The RTX A400's Ampere architecture, with its dedicated tensor cores and RT cores, likely contributes to the advantage even in non-ray-traced tasks, as the driver can schedule work across a more modern execution pipeline.

The GTX 750 has no wins in the head-to-head data. The winsA count is 0, and winsB is 2. However, the GTX 750's average benchmark score of 7222 is higher than the RTX A400's 6078. This discrepancy comes from the test mix. The GTX 750's scores come from Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, while the RTX A400's average includes several Passmark tests (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute) that pull its average down. The Passmark DirectX 9 score of 87 and DirectX 10 score of 32 are particularly low, likely reflecting the RTX A400's focus on modern workloads rather than legacy rasterization paths.

The RTX A400's Passmark G3D score of 5983 and GPU Compute score of 2557 are more representative of its actual capability. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22844 is nearly four times the GTX 750's OpenCL score. The data suggests the RTX A400 is a specialized modern compute card, while the GTX 750 is a more balanced older GPU with competitive legacy performance.

The Verdict

The data points to two different buyers. The GTX 750 suits anyone working with older software or comparing against a broad field of GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 7222 sits 0.3% above the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile and 0.7% above both the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE and Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580. It even edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 by 0.9%. For a 2014 card, that is a strong aggregate position. Users who need DVI output or mini-HDMI, or who run DirectX 11-era titles, will find the GTX 750 adequate.

The RTX A400 is the clear choice for modern compute and professional workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22844 and Vulkan score of 22237 are in a different class from the GTX 750. It also offers 4 GB of memory, essential for larger datasets, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with ray tracing. The RTX A400's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at nearly identical average score, the Quadro P2000 at 0.5% behind, and the AMD Radeon 760M at 1% behind. The Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 sits 0.6% ahead. This places the RTX A400 in a tight pack of mobile and low-power workstation GPUs, where its modern architecture and tensor core support give it an edge in AI-adjacent tasks.

The GTX 750 wins on aggregate score and percentile ranking. The RTX A400 wins on every head-to-head test, every modern feature, and every raw compute metric. The verdict depends on context. For legacy compatibility and broad benchmark standing, the GTX 750 remains a viable entry. For anyone needing current API support, higher memory capacity, or compute acceleration, the RTX A400 is the only rational pick. The data does not support a middle ground: either you need the GTX 750's legacy profile or the RTX A400's modern throughput.