GeForce GTS 250 vs GT 755M SLI

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 755M SLI with GeForce GTS 250, including specs and performance data.

GT 755M SLI
2013
2x 2 GB GDDR5, 2 Watt
8.70
+465%

GT 755M SLI outperforms GTS 250 by a whopping 465% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking491968
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.06
Power efficiency6.060.72
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameN14P-?G92B
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 November 2013 (11 years ago)4 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores768128
Core clock speed980 MHz738 MHz
Number of transistors2x 1300 Million754 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)2x ~50 Watt150 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rateno data44.93
Floating-point processing powerno data0.3871 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data64

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 sizelargeno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Heightno data4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin
SLI options-+

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2x 2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width2x 128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed5400 MHz1100 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data70.4 GB/s
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 dataTwo Dual Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

API compatibility

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

DirectX1111.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data3.0
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA++

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 HD37
+517%
6−7
−517%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data33.17

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+480%
10−11
−480%
Hitman 3 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+513%
8−9
−513%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+480%
5−6
−480%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+490%
10−11
−490%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Battlefield 5 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+480%
10−11
−480%
Hitman 3 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+513%
8−9
−513%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+480%
5−6
−480%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+490%
10−11
−490%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+480%
10−11
−480%
Hitman 3 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+513%
8−9
−513%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+480%
5−6
−480%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+490%
10−11
−490%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+500%
6−7
−500%
Hitman 3 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Metro Exodus 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+511%
9−10
−511%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+467%
6−7
−467%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

This is how GT 755M SLI and GTS 250 compete in popular games:

  • GT 755M SLI is 517% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.70 1.54
Recency 1 November 2013 4 March 2009
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 2 Watt 150 Watt

GT 755M SLI has a 464.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 7400% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 755M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 755M SLI is a notebook card while GeForce GTS 250 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 755M SLI
GeForce GT 755M SLI
NVIDIA GeForce GTS 250
GeForce GTS 250

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.4 21 vote

Rate GeForce GT 755M SLI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1643 votes

Rate GeForce GTS 250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.