HD Graphics vs GeForce GT 750M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 750M with HD Graphics, including specs and performance data.

GT 750M
2013
4 GB DDR3, 50 Watt
3.33
+344%

GT 750M outperforms HD Graphics by a whopping 344% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking7351162
Place by popularitynot in top-10069
Power efficiency4.781.54
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 7.0 (2012−2013)
GPU code nameGK107Ivy Bridge GT1
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date9 January 2013 (12 years ago)1 April 2012 (12 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 cores38448
Core clock speed941 MHz650 MHz
Boost clock speed967 MHz1050 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million392 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm22 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate30.946.300
Floating-point processing power0.7427 TFLOPS0.1008 TFLOPS
ROPs161
TMUs326

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Standard memory configurationDDR3/GDDR5no data
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1003 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth64.19 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportUp to 3840x2160no data
LVDS signal supportUp to 1920x1200no data
VGA аnalog display supportUp to 2048x1536no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportUp to 3840x2160no 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 compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 API11.1 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.54.0
OpenCL1.11.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.80
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.

GT 750M 3.33
+344%
HD Graphics 0.75

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.

GT 750M 1335
+346%
HD Graphics 299

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GT 750M 1574
+425%
HD Graphics 300

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 HD20
+400%
4−5
−400%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Valorant 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Dota 2 8
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Fortnite 20−22
+400%
4−5
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Grand Theft Auto V 12
+500%
2−3
−500%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+417%
6−7
−417%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+450%
2−3
−450%
Valorant 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
World of Tanks 57
+375%
12−14
−375%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Dota 2 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+375%
4−5
−375%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+417%
6−7
−417%
Valorant 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 2−3 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
World of Tanks 24−27
+380%
5−6
−380%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Valorant 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Fortnite 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
Valorant 3−4 0−1

This is how GT 750M and HD Graphics compete in popular games:

  • GT 750M is 400% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.33 0.75
Recency 9 January 2013 1 April 2012
Chip lithography 28 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 35 Watt

GT 750M has a 344% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 9 months.

HD Graphics, on the other hand, has a 27.3% more advanced lithography process, and 42.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 750M is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 750M is a notebook card while HD Graphics is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M
GeForce GT 750M
Intel HD Graphics
HD Graphics

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.4 566 votes

Rate GeForce GT 750M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 2264 votes

Rate HD Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 750M or HD Graphics, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.