OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£480VRAM:12 GBMemory bus width:192 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):250 W

MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 8 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio
7.4/10

Overall score

Score
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 50% of models
Score components

40%

6.9

Technical score

25%

8.1

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

6.9

Sentiment score

▲Better than 50% of graphics cards
7.6

Value for money

Value for money
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 62% of models
Score components

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

8.0

Price

▲Better than 62%
6.9

Technical score

Technical score
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 50% of models
Score components

44%

6.2

Performance

24%

6.3

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

5.8

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

▲Better than 50%
8.1

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.1/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 60% of models

80%

8.1

Average grade

20%

8.4

Popularity

Grades by review (8)
6 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▲Better than 60%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • msi-radeon-rx-6750-xt-gaming-x-trio
  • msi-radeon-rx-6750-xt-gaming-x-trio
  • msi-radeon-rx-6750-xt-gaming-x-trio
  • msi-radeon-rx-6750-xt-gaming-x-trio
  • msi-radeon-rx-6750-xt-gaming-x-trio
  • msi-radeon-rx-6750-xt-gaming-x-trio
  • msi-radeon-rx-6750-xt-gaming-x-trio
msi-radeon-rx-6750-xt-gaming-x-trio
msi-radeon-rx-6750-xt-gaming-x-trio
msi-radeon-rx-6750-xt-gaming-x-trio
msi-radeon-rx-6750-xt-gaming-x-trio
msi-radeon-rx-6750-xt-gaming-x-trio
msi-radeon-rx-6750-xt-gaming-x-trio
msi-radeon-rx-6750-xt-gaming-x-trio
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio

Based on 6 · 2

Reviewers praise its excellent cooling, high clock speeds and quiet running, but gaming performance splits opinion and power use draws complaints.
Praised
Mixed views
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio

Based on 209 owners sharing their experience in online comments

69%positive14%mixed17%negative

Owners praise its strong gaming speed, while high temperatures and unreliable drivers are the main frustrations.

What owners dislike

  • Owners report hotspot temperatures reaching 90–100°C under heavy gaming load, especially in cases with poor airflow or in some two-fan models.32
  • Owners report brief frame drops, stutters, and crashes in some games, with some saying a GPU-driver or power-setting fix helped.17
  • Owners report driver crashes, Radeon software bugs, and settings that reset after updates, with some saying older driver versions ran more stably.13
  • Owners say it struggles to hold high frame rates at 1440p or 4K with demanding or ray-traced games unless they use FSR upscaling.8
  • Owners report crashes or blue screens when the voltage is lowered below about 1175 mV or the clock is pushed past about 2700 MHz.7
  • Owners say overclocking adds only about 1–2% more performance while increasing power draw, heat and fan noise.6
  • Owners say the power limit is locked at 0% on some models, such as certain MSI variants, and voltage cannot be lowered much.5
  • Owners report audible coil whine at high frame rates above about 60–70% GPU load, and some say capping fps reduces it.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio

Technical score
Technical score
6.9/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 50% of models
Score components:

44%

6.2

Performance

24%

6.3

Memory

12%

8.4

Power

11%

9.2

Features

5%

5.8

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

6.9
Reviews score
8.1
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 62% of models
Score components:

70%

7.4

Overall score

30%

8.0

Price

7.6
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
13,000 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 13,000 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 58.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.5% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
5,698 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 5,698 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 69.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
21,624 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 21,624 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 55.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
6,948 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 6,948 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 75.3% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
13.43 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 13.43 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 65.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
12 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 12 GB of VRAM, which is more than 46% of graphics cards and equal to 16% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
192 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 192 bit memory bus, which is wider than that of 31.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 18.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
432 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 432 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 58.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.7% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
18,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 18,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 51.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 8.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
3
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 3 DisplayPort outputs, which is more than 21.7% of graphics cards and equal to 76% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
250 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 250 W, which is higher than that of 59.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 6.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
250 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 250 W under peak load, which is higher than 57.6% of graphics cards and equal to 4.8% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
650 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 650 W PSU, which is lower than that of 39.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 13.9% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
250 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 250 W, which is higher than that of 56% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
250 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
327x 137x 56 mm
Length
327 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 327 mm long, which is longer than 79.1% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.4% of graphics cards.
Height
137 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 137 mm tall, which is taller than 74.1% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.8% of graphics cards.
Slot width
3 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 3 slot/s, which is wider than 70.7% of graphics cards and equal in width to 16.8% of graphics cards.
Weight
1,368 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 1,368 g, which is heavier than 69.4% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 4.7% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,623 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,623 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 21% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,324 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,324 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 24x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (96 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    96 MB vs 4 MB
  • 28.6% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 12.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 60% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (8)
    6 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 7.2
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 7.6 dB quieter under load
    This graphics card has a lower load noise level than the average graphics card (27.8 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    27.8 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 12.5% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.1/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 60% of models

    80%

    8.1

    Average grade

    20%

    8.4

    Popularity

    Grades by review (8)
    6 reviews: 3 with a printed score, 3 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.1 vs 7.2
  • 4.7% higher boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,623 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,623 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 21% higher base clock speed
    This graphics card has a higher base GPU clock than the average graphics card (2,324 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    2,324 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 24x more Infinity Cache
    This graphics card has more Infinity Cache than the average graphics card (96 MB vs 4 MB). The average graphics card has 4 MB Infinity Cache.
    96 MB vs 4 MB
  • 28.6% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,250 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 7.6 dB quieter under load
    This graphics card has a lower load noise level than the average graphics card (27.8 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    27.8 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • 50% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (6 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    6 W vs 12 W
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 104 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (40 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    40 vs 144
  • 40% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (7 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    7 nm vs 5 nm
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 44.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (327 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    327 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 11.5% lower sentiment score
    6.9 vs 7.8
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 104 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (40 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    40 vs 144
  • 40.6% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (13.4 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    13.43 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 37.7% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (5,698 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    5,698 points vs 9,148 points
  • 24 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (160 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    160 vs 184
  • 1 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2022 vs 2023).
    May 2022
    2022 vs 2023
  • 42.4% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (6,948 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    6,948 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 87.5% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (3 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    3 MB vs 24 MB
  • 5.3% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (18,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    18,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 3.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (432 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    432 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • 40% larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (7 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    7 nm vs 5 nm
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 3).
    2.1 vs 3
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (3 vs 3.1).
    3 vs 3.1
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/VP9 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 16.3% higher TDP
    This graphics card has a higher TDP than the average graphics card (250 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    250 W vs 215 W
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • 13.6% higher board power limit
    This graphics card has a higher board power limit than the average graphics card (250 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    250 W vs 220 W
  • 44.8 mm longer card length
    This graphics card is longer than the average graphics card (327 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    327 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 12 mm higher card profile
    This graphics card is taller than the average graphics card (137 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    137 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s wider design
    This graphics card occupies more slots than the average graphics card (3 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    3 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 34.9% heavier
    This graphics card is heavier than the average graphics card (1,368 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    1,368 g vs 1,014 g

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

8.0
Gear Seekers
≈ estimated
11/05/2022
Full review · benchmarks, thermals, power and noise tests
Verdict
MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio is one of the better 1440p cards if priced right, though ray tracing lags Nvidia.
9.0
The Gaming Stadium
≈ estimated
10/05/2022
Hands-on review · game benchmarks and first impressions
Verdict
MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio offers strong gaming performance and a solid overall package, recommended for anyone shopping for a gaming GPU.

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

10
techpowerup.com
✓ explicit
10/05/2022
Launch review · Factory-overclocked triple-fan card
Verdict
The MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio adds factory overclocks, faster memory and a large triple-fan cooler to AMD's RX 6750 XT.
8.0
overclockers.com
≈ estimated
10/05/2022
Lab test · Tri Frozr 2.0 cooler
Verdict
The MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio runs cool and quiet thanks to its Tri Frozr 2.0 cooler, but its 2.5-slot size needs room in the case.
7.0
pcmag.com
✓ explicit
01/06/2022
Benchmark review · Triple-fan midrange card
Verdict
The MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio 12G has strong cooling and gaming performance, but it is a small step up from the RX 6700 XT.
6.0
guru3d.com
≈ estimated
10/05/2022
Lab test · Triple-fan 1440p card
Verdict
The MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X TRIO is a quiet, cool 1440p card, but its ray tracing trails Nvidia's cards.
7.0
eteknix.com
≈ estimated
31/05/2022
Performance review · Cooling and noise
Verdict
The MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio suits buyers happy to tune its fan curve, but anyone wanting DLSS or ray tracing should look elsewhere.
9.4
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
10/05/2022
Full review · Triple-fan midrange card
Verdict
The MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X TRIO is a fast, quiet midrange card with a large cooler, though gains over the RX 6700 XT are modest.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio

  • Excellent cooling performance with low operating temperatures (~65°C under load)
  • Whisper-quiet operation even during intensive gaming sessions
  • Strong 1440p gaming performance and capable of entry-level 4K with settings adjustments
  • High build quality featuring a sturdy metal backplate and sleek aesthetics
  • Includes a GPU support bracket to prevent sagging due to its large size
  • User-friendly overclocking and undervolting via AMD Adrenalin software

What customers don't like about MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio

  • Higher MSRP offers poor value compared to the nearly identical RX 6700 XT
  • Significant physical footprint (32cm length, 3-slot width) may not fit in smaller cases
  • Subpar ray tracing performance compared to similar Nvidia RTX 30-series cards
  • Higher power consumption (TDP) for relatively minor performance gains
  • Lacks support for Nvidia-exclusive features like DLSS
  • Occasional reports of coil whine in high-framerate scenarios

Verdict

The MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio is a high-performance custom graphics card based on the RDNA 2 architecture, featuring 2,560 stream processors and 12GB of high-speed 18Gbps GDDR6 memory on a 192-bit bus. It boasts a factory-overclocked boost clock of up to 2623 MHz and utilizes MSI’s advanced Tri Frozr 2 cooling system with three Torx 4.0 fans for exceptional thermal management. Main pros include its superior 1440p gaming performance, nearly silent operation under load, and premium build quality with customizable Mystic Light RGB and a sturdy metal backplate. However, main cons involve its large three-slot physical footprint that may not fit in smaller cases, higher power consumption compared to the base 6700 XT, and a price point that often faces stiff competition from higher-tier GPUs.

Compare MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X Trio and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found