GeForce GTX 470M SLI vs GT 750M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 750M SLI and GeForce GTX 470M SLI, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GT 750M SLI outperforms GTX 470M SLI by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 570 | 578 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | N14P-GT | N11E-GT |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 April 2013 (11 years ago) | 1 November 2010 (14 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 | 576 |
| Core clock speed | 967 MHz | 535 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1300 Million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
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 | large |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 2 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 2x 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 - 5000 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Shared memory | - | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 11 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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:
| 900p | 65−70
−1.5%
| 66
+1.5%
|
| Full HD | 57
−38.6%
| 79
+38.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+6.9%
|
27−30
−6.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+7.7%
|
24−27
−7.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+6.9%
|
27−30
−6.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+5.3%
|
18−20
−5.3%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+5.4%
|
35−40
−5.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+3.6%
|
27−30
−3.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+5.9%
|
16−18
−5.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+4.3%
|
21−24
−4.3%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+2.9%
|
70−75
−2.9%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+7.7%
|
24−27
−7.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+6.9%
|
27−30
−6.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 163
+59.8%
|
100−110
−59.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+2%
|
50−55
−2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+5.3%
|
18−20
−5.3%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+5.4%
|
35−40
−5.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+3.6%
|
27−30
−3.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18−20
+5.9%
|
16−18
−5.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+4.5%
|
21−24
−4.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+4.3%
|
21−24
−4.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+2.9%
|
70−75
−2.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+7.7%
|
24−27
−7.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+2%
|
50−55
−2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
+5.3%
|
18−20
−5.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+3.6%
|
27−30
−3.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+4.3%
|
21−24
−4.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+2.9%
|
70−75
−2.9%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+5.4%
|
35−40
−5.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+4.2%
|
45−50
−4.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+2.6%
|
35−40
−2.6%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+4.3%
|
70−75
−4.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+5.9%
|
16−18
−5.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+3.1%
|
30−35
−3.1%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+4.5%
|
21−24
−4.5%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
This is how GT 750M SLI and GTX 470M SLI compete in popular games:
- GTX 470M SLI is 2% faster in 900p
- GTX 470M SLI is 39% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 750M SLI is 60% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 750M SLI is ahead in 42 tests (69%)
- there's a draw in 19 tests (31%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.96 | 5.71 |
| Recency | 1 April 2013 | 1 November 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
GT 750M SLI has a 4.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 750M SLI and GeForce GTX 470M SLI.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
