GRID K340 vs GeForce GT 750M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 750M with GRID K340, including specs and performance data.
750M outperforms K340 by a moderate 10% 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 | 787 | 812 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.02 |
| Power efficiency | 4.86 | 0.98 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 9 January 2013 (12 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $3,299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 384 | 384 ×4 |
| Core clock speed | 941 MHz | 950 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 967 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 225 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.94 | 30.40 ×4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7427 TFLOPS | 0.7296 TFLOPS ×4 |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 ×4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 ×4 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 8-pin |
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 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB ×4 |
| Standard memory configuration | DDR3/GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit ×4 |
| Memory clock speed | 1003 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64.19 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s ×4 |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 outputs | No outputs |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP content protection | + | - |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | - |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 3.0 |
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 | 21
+16.7%
| 18−20
−16.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 183.28 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 57
+14%
|
50−55
−14%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+11.1%
|
27−30
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+11.1%
|
27−30
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+20%
|
40−45
−20%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+14.3%
|
21−24
−14.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+12.5%
|
24−27
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+18.5%
|
27−30
−18.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how GT 750M and GRID K340 compete in popular games:
- GT 750M is 17% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.01 | 2.73 |
| Recency | 9 January 2013 | 23 July 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 225 Watt |
GT 750M has a 10.3% higher aggregate performance score, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 350% lower power consumption.
GRID K340, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 months.
The GeForce GT 750M is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K340 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 750M is a notebook graphics card while GRID K340 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.
