GeForce GT 750M vs GTX 260M SLI

Place in the ranking	741	727
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.61	5.06
Architecture	G9x (2007−2010)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	NB9E-GTX	GK107
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	2 March 2009 (15 years ago)	9 January 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	224	384
Core clock speed	550 MHz	941 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	967 MHz
Number of transistors	1508 Million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	30.94
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.7427 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	16
TMUs	no data	32

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	medium sized
Bus support	no data	PCI Express 3.0
Interface	no data	PCIe 3.0 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	GDDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Standard memory configuration	no data	DDR3/GDDR5
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	950 MHz	1003 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	64.19 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 Connectors	no data	No outputs
eDP 1.2 signal support	no data	Up to 3840x2160
LVDS signal support	no data	Up to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display support	no data	Up to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	no data	Up to 3840x2160
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 compatibility

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

DirectX	10	12 API
Shader Model	no data	5.1
OpenGL	no data	4.5
OpenCL	no data	1.1
Vulkan	-	1.1.126
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 260M SLI 3.30

GT 750M 3.45
+4.5%

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.

GTX 260M SLI 8959

GT 750M 9618
+7.4%

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

18−21

−16.7%

21
+16.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7

+0%

6−7

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Battlefield 5	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −11.8%	18−20 +11.8%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −8.7%	24−27 +8.7%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −2.5%	40−45 +2.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Battlefield 5	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −11.8%	18−20 +11.8%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −8.7%	24−27 +8.7%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −114%	30 +114%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −2.5%	40−45 +2.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −11.8%	18−20 +11.8%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −8.7%	24−27 +8.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −7.7%	14−16 +7.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +180%	5 −180%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −2.5%	40−45 +2.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9

−12.5%

9−10
+12.5%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 −10.5%	21−24 +10.5%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

+0%

7−8

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

0−1

This is how GTX 260M SLI and GT 750M compete in popular games:

GT 750M is 17% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 260M SLI is 180% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 750M is 114% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 260M SLI is ahead in 1 test (2%)
GT 750M is ahead in 34 tests (54%)
there's a draw in 28 tests (44%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.30	3.45
Recency	2 March 2009	9 January 2013
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	150 Watt	50 Watt

GT 750M has a 4.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 260M SLI and GeForce GT 750M.

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