GeForce GT 820M vs GT 750M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 750M SLI and GeForce GT 820M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
750M SLI outperforms 820M by a whopping 397% 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 | 615 | 1064 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 6.60 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | N14P-GT | GF117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 April 2013 (12 years ago) | 27 November 2013 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 967 MHz | 775 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1300 Million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 12.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.2976 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 128 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | DDR3, GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 - 5000 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.4 GB/s |
| 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 | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.1 |
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 | 57
+470%
| 10−12
−470%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+433%
|
6−7
−433%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+433%
|
6−7
−433%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+414%
|
14−16
−414%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+433%
|
6−7
−433%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 163
+443%
|
30−33
−443%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+420%
|
10−11
−420%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+414%
|
14−16
−414%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+420%
|
10−11
−420%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+414%
|
14−16
−414%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+421%
|
14−16
−421%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35
+450%
|
6−7
−450%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
This is how GT 750M SLI and GT 820M compete in popular games:
- GT 750M SLI is 470% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.41 | 1.29 |
| Recency | 1 April 2013 | 27 November 2013 |
GT 750M SLI has a 396.9% higher aggregate performance score.
GT 820M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months.
The GeForce GT 750M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 820M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
