NVS 810 vs GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 750 Ti with NVS 810, including specs and performance data.
750 Ti outperforms NVS 810 by a whopping 240% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 523 | 864 |
| Place by popularity | 45 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.44 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.07 | 3.13 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | GM107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 February 2014 (12 years ago) | 4 November 2015 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 512 ×2 |
| Core clock speed | 1020 MHz | 902 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1085 MHz | 1033 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 68 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 43.40 | 33.06 ×2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.389 TFLOPS | 1.058 TFLOPS ×2 |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 ×2 |
| TMUs | 40 | 32 ×2 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1024 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 198 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB ×2 |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit ×2 |
| Memory clock speed | 5.4 GB/s | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 86.4 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s ×2 |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMI | 8x mini-DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu Ray 3D | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| 3D Vision Live | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 5.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 50
+257%
| 14−16
−257%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+257%
|
14−16
−257%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+250%
|
12−14
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+257%
|
14−16
−257%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+244%
|
9−10
−244%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+256%
|
16−18
−256%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+242%
|
12−14
−242%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+275%
|
24−27
−275%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+250%
|
12−14
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+257%
|
14−16
−257%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+258%
|
40−45
−258%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+283%
|
18−20
−283%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+244%
|
9−10
−244%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+256%
|
16−18
−256%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+242%
|
12−14
−242%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+250%
|
10−11
−250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+243%
|
7−8
−243%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+275%
|
24−27
−275%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+250%
|
12−14
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+283%
|
18−20
−283%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+244%
|
9−10
−244%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+242%
|
12−14
−242%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+278%
|
9−10
−278%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+243%
|
7−8
−243%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+275%
|
24−27
−275%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+256%
|
16−18
−256%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+243%
|
21−24
−243%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+250%
|
14−16
−250%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+244%
|
27−30
−244%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+250%
|
12−14
−250%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+250%
|
10−11
−250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
This is how GTX 750 Ti and NVS 810 compete in popular games:
- GTX 750 Ti is 257% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.36 | 2.75 |
| Recency | 18 February 2014 | 4 November 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 68 Watt |
GTX 750 Ti has a 240% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 13% lower power consumption.
NVS 810, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.
The GeForce GTX 750 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 810 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 750 Ti is a desktop graphics card while NVS 810 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
