GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs GTX 280

Place in the ranking	739	447
Place by popularity	not in top-100	29
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.12	4.98
Power efficiency	0.97	11.57
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	GT200	GM107
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)	18 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$649	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 750 Ti has 4050% better value for money than GTX 280.

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	240	640
Core clock speed	602 MHz	1020 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1085 MHz
Number of transistors	1,400 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	236 Watt	60 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	105 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	48.16	43.40
Floating-point processing power	0.6221 TFLOPS	1.389 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	16
TMUs	80	40

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).

Bus support	no data	PCI Express 3.0
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	267 mm	145 mm
Height	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)	4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	None
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 type	GDDR3	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	512 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1107 MHz	5.4 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	141.7 GB/s	86.4 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 Connectors	HDTVDual Link DVI	One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMI
Multi monitor support	+	4 displays
HDMI	-	+
HDCP	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	S/PDIF	Internal

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Blu Ray 3D	-	+
3D Gaming	-	+
3D Vision	-	+
3D Vision Live	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	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 280 3.34

GTX 750 Ti 10.12
+203%

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.

GTX 280 1285

GTX 750 Ti 3899
+203%

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

16−18

−219%

51
+219%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

40.56

2.92

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Hitman 3	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Battlefield 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Hitman 3	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Hitman 3	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30

+0%

27−30

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Hitman 3	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+0%

10−11

+0%

This is how GTX 280 and GTX 750 Ti compete in popular games:

GTX 750 Ti is 219% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.34	10.12
Recency	16 June 2008	18 February 2014
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	65 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	236 Watt	60 Watt

GTX 750 Ti has a 203% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 293.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 750 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 280 in performance tests.

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