AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT vs NVIDIA RTX A4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A4000 and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT are closely matched overall, but they win in different arenas. The A4000 takes 6 of 10 head-to-head benchmarks, including a massive 546.3% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, while the RX 6750 XT counters with a 6% win in Passmark G3D and better legacy DirectX performance. The data paints a clear picture: the A4000 is a compute and API-forward workstation card, while the RX 6750 XT is a rasterization-focused gaming GPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single most decisive result is in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RTX A4000 scores 105739 against the RX 6750 XT’s 16360. That is a 546.3% advantage, an enormous gap that dwarfs every other difference in the suite. This result is not incremental; it indicates the A4000’s compute architecture is in a different class for general-purpose GPU workloads.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the A4000 again leads, scoring 127645 versus 98089, a 30.1% margin. This is the second-largest delta and shows the NVIDIA card’s strength in modern, low-level graphics APIs, even when the AMD card’s architecture is designed for gaming efficiency.

The 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test gives the A4000 a narrow 2.2% win (2604 vs 2548). This is a small but real margin, suggesting the A4000 holds a slight edge in current-generation DX12 gaming workloads despite being a workstation product.

Passmark G2D favors the A4000 by 5.3% (1024 vs 972), and Passmark GPU Compute gives it a 2.2% win (9760 vs 9550). Passmark DirectX 10 is a near-tie, with the A4000 ahead by just 0.8% (126 vs 125). These results reinforce the pattern: the A4000 wins in compute, general 2D performance, and modern API tests.

The RX 6750 XT’s wins are concentrated in legacy DirectX and overall gaming rasterization. It takes Passmark DirectX 11 by 12.2% (180 vs 158), Passmark DirectX 12 by 10% (80 vs 72), and Passmark DirectX 9 by 8.7% (263 vs 240). The biggest overall gaming win is Passmark G3D, where the RX 6750 XT scores 20700 against 19459, a 6% advantage. These four wins are meaningful for gaming, but they are all smaller in percentage terms than the A4000’s OpenCL blowout.

The average benchmark scores reflect this split: the A4000 averages 26683, while the RX 6750 XT averages 26011. The A4000 sits at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, and the RX 6750 XT is at the 71st. The A4000’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary, just 0.5% ahead, while the RX 6750 XT’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R9 M395X, 0.5% behind. These percentile positions confirm they are peers in overall performance, with the delta coming down to workload type rather than raw capability.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A4000 is dramatically faster, scoring 105739 versus 16360 for the AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT, a 546.3% lead. This is the largest performance gap in the entire benchmark suite.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the RX 6750 XT wins 4 of 10 tests: Passmark DirectX 11 (180 vs 158), DirectX 12 (80 vs 72), DirectX 9 (263 vs 240), and Passmark G3D (20700 vs 19459). Its G3D win is the most significant, at 6% ahead.

Q: How do they compare in modern game performance?

A: In 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, the A4000 wins by 2.2% (2604 vs 2548). In Geekbench Vulkan, the A4000 wins by 30.1% (127645 vs 98089). The data shows the NVIDIA card has the edge in current-generation APIs.

Q: What about their overall benchmark averages?

A: The A4000 has an average benchmark score of 26683, placing it in the 72nd percentile of all GPUs. The RX 6750 XT averages 26011, placing it in the 71st percentile. They are statistically very close overall.

Q: Which card is better for compute workloads?

A: The A4000 is clearly superior, winning Passmark GPU Compute by 2.2% (9760 vs 9550) and dominating Geekbench OpenCL by 546.3%. Its 6144 shading units and 192 tensor cores give it a structural advantage in parallel processing.

Q: Is there a difference in memory capacity?

A: Yes, the A4000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the RX 6750 XT has 12 GB on a 192-bit bus. The A4000’s bandwidth is 448.0 GB/s versus 432.0 GB/s for the AMD card.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The RTX A4000 uses the GA104 chip on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, manufactured on Samsung’s 8 nm process. It packs 17,400 million transistors into a 392 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 44.4M per mm². The RX 6750 XT uses the Navi 22 chip on AMD’s RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It has 17,200 million transistors on a smaller 335 mm² die, giving it a higher density of 51.3M per mm².

The compute resources diverge sharply. The A4000 has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, along with 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores. The RX 6750 XT has 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, with 40 RT cores and no tensor cores at all. This explains the A4000’s OpenCL dominance: it has 2.4 times the shading units and a full tensor core array for AI-accelerated workloads.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The RX 6750 XT runs at a 2150 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost, with a game clock of 2495 MHz. The A4000 is far more conservative, with a 735 MHz base and 1560 MHz boost. The AMD card’s higher clocks drive its rasterization wins, while the A4000 compensates with more parallel hardware.

Memory configurations differ in both size and bandwidth. The A4000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s. The RX 6750 XT has 12 GB on a 192-bit bus, delivering 432.0 GB/s. The A4000’s extra 4 GB and wider bus give it a capacity and bandwidth edge, which is relevant for large datasets and high-resolution textures.

The cards also differ in power and physical design. The A4000 has a 140 W TDP, is single-slot, and uses a single 6-pin power connector with a 300 W suggested PSU. The RX 6750 XT has a 250 W TDP, is dual-slot, and requires a 6-pin plus 8-pin connector with a 600 W suggested PSU. The A4000 is 241 mm long, while the RX 6750 XT is 267 mm long and 40 mm wide.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: pick the RTX A4000 for compute-heavy, professional, and API-forward workloads, and the RX 6750 XT for legacy gaming and pure rasterization. The A4000’s 546.3% OpenCL lead and 30.1% Vulkan lead are decisive for anyone running OpenCL compute, AI inference, or modern cross-platform graphics. Its 16 GB memory and 192 tensor cores make it the superior choice for large models and parallel processing.

The RX 6750 XT is the better choice for traditional gaming rasterization, as shown by its 6% Passmark G3D win and its victories in DirectX 9, 11, and 12. Its higher clock speeds (2600 MHz boost vs 1560 MHz) and lower shading unit count suggest an architecture optimized for per-core efficiency in gaming, not bulk compute. For a user prioritizing DirectX 11 or 12 game performance, the RX 6750 XT delivers measurable wins.

Overall, the A4000’s 6-4 benchmark win record and higher average score (26683 vs 26011) give it the technical edge. But the RX 6750 XT’s wins are not trivial; they cover the most common gaming APIs. The A4000’s 72nd percentile ranking versus the RX 6750 XT’s 71st confirms they are peers, but the A4000’s wins are in more future-proof workloads.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The A4000 uses NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture on an 8 nm Samsung process, while the RX 6750 XT uses AMD’s RDNA 2.0 on a 7 nm TSMC process. The A4000 has a larger die (392 mm² vs 335 mm²) but lower transistor density (44.4M vs 51.3M per mm²).

Compute units differ significantly: the A4000 has 6144 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 96 ROPs, versus the RX 6750 XT’s 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The A4000 also has 48 RT cores and 192 tensor cores, while the RX 6750 XT has 40 RT cores and no tensor cores.

Clock speeds favor AMD: 2150 MHz base and 2600 MHz boost versus 735 MHz base and 1560 MHz boost. The RX 6750 XT also has a 2495 MHz game clock that the A4000 lacks. Memory differs: 16 GB on a 256-bit bus (448.0 GB/s) for the A4000, versus 12 GB on a 192-bit bus (432.0 GB/s) for the RX 6750 XT.

Power and physical specs diverge: the A4000 has a 140 W TDP, single-slot design, and 1x 6-pin connector with a 300 W PSU suggestion. The RX 6750 XT has a 250 W TDP, dual-slot design, 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors, and a 600 W PSU suggestion. The A4000 measures 241 mm in length and 112 mm in height; the RX 6750 XT is 267 mm long, 110 mm high, and 40 mm wide.

Display outputs differ: the A4000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RX 6750 XT has 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6750 XT has a launch MSRP of 549 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A4000 wins in compute, modern APIs, and professional use cases. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 105739 is 546.3% higher, making it the clear choice for OpenCL-based rendering, scientific computation, or machine learning inference. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 127645, 30.1% higher, gives it the edge in Vulkan-based games and applications. The 2.2% win in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 shows it can hold its own in current DX12 titles. The 5.3% Passmark G2D win and 2.2% Passmark GPU Compute win round out its strengths in 2D performance and general compute. Its 16 GB memory and 192 tensor cores make it suitable for large datasets and AI workloads that the RX 6750 XT cannot handle.

The RX 6750 XT wins in legacy gaming APIs and overall rasterization. Its 6% Passmark G3D win (20700 vs 19459) is the most important gaming metric, indicating better raw fill-rate and pixel throughput. It wins DirectX 11 by 12.2%, DirectX 12 by 10%, and DirectX 9 by 8.7%, which covers the vast majority of existing game titles. Its higher boost clock of 2600 MHz versus 1560 MHz is the likely driver of these wins. For a user who primarily plays DirectX 9, 11, or 12 games without ray tracing or compute workloads, the RX 6750 XT is the faster card. Its 40 RT cores provide ray tracing capability, and its 12 GB memory is sufficient for most gaming scenarios, though it lacks the tensor cores and OpenCL performance of the A4000.