Radeon 530 vs Radeon HD 8750M

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Radeon HD 8750M

#39

Radeon RX 7700S

MSRP: $449|Avg: $350

99%

#134

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

310%

#136

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

281%

#137

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

280%

#141

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

255%

#142

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

253%

#144

Radeon HD 8750M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#145

Radeon RX 580 (móvel)

MSRP: $229|Avg: $65

100%

#147

GeForce GT 630M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $35

99%

#150

Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7

MSRP: $100|Avg: $50

97%

#157

GeForce 830M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $30

96%

#158

GeForce GT 750M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

95%

#159

GeForce GT 425M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $25

95%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Radeon HD 8750M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.4% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (2 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon 530.

Insight	Radeon 530	Radeon HD 8750M
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.4%)	✅Leading raw performance (+1.4%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+300%)
Efficiency	Normal Efficiency	Normal Efficiency
Case Fit	—	—

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the Radeon HD 8750M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

Radeon 530 Benchmark Check

Radeon HD 8750M Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon 530 and Radeon HD 8750M

Radeon 530

The Radeon 530 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 18 2017. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 730 MHz to 1024 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,037 points.

Radeon HD 8750M

The Radeon HD 8750M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in February 26 2013. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 670 MHz to 775 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,052 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Radeon 530 scores 1,037 and the Radeon HD 8750M reaches 1,052 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon 530 is built on GCN 3.0 while the Radeon HD 8750M uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (Radeon 530) vs 384 (Radeon HD 8750M). Raw compute: 0.7864 TFLOPS (Radeon 530) vs 0.5146 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 8750M). Boost clocks: 1024 MHz vs 775 MHz.

Feature	Radeon 530	Radeon HD 8750M
G3D Mark Score	1,037	1,052+1%
Architecture	GCN 3.0	GCN 1.0
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	384	384
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.7864 TFLOPS+53%	0.5146 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1024 MHz+32%	775 MHz
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	24	24
L1 Cache	96 KB	96 KB
L2 Cache	128 KB	256 KB+100%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon 530	Radeon HD 8750M
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	AMD Anti-Lag	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The Radeon 530 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon HD 8750M has 2 GB. The Radeon HD 8750M offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs System. L2 Cache: 128 KB (Radeon 530) vs 256 KB (Radeon HD 8750M) — the Radeon HD 8750M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Radeon 530	Radeon HD 8750M
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB	2 GB+300%
Memory Type	GDDR5	Shared
Bus Width	64-bit	System
L2 Cache	128 KB	256 KB+100%

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (12_0) (Radeon 530) vs 12 (11_1) (Radeon HD 8750M). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 2.

Feature	Radeon 530	Radeon HD 8750M
DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (11_1)
Vulkan	1.2	1.2
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
Max Displays	3+50%	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VCE 3.0 (Radeon 530) vs VCE 1.0 (Radeon HD 8750M). Decoder: UVD 6.0 vs UVD 3.0. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265 (Decode),VC-1,MPEG-4 (Radeon 530) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (Radeon HD 8750M).

Feature	Radeon 530	Radeon HD 8750M
Encoder	VCE 3.0	VCE 1.0
Decoder	UVD 6.0	UVD 3.0
Codecs	H.264,H.265 (Decode),VC-1,MPEG-4	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon 530 draws 50W versus the Radeon HD 8750M's 50W — a 0% difference. The Radeon HD 8750M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon 530) vs 350W (Radeon HD 8750M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 75°C.