UHD Graphics 750 vs GeForce GTX 465

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 465 and UHD Graphics 750, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 465
2010
1 GB GDDR5, 200 Watt
6.87
+53%

GTX 465 outperforms UHD Graphics 750 by an impressive 53% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking552655
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.15no data
Power efficiency2.3820.73
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Generation 12.1 (2020−2021)
GPU code nameGF100Rocket Lake GT1
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date31 May 2010 (14 years ago)30 March 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

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 cores352256
Core clock speed607 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1300 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)200 Watt15 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate26.7520.80
Floating-point processing power0.8554 TFLOPS0.6656 TFLOPS
Compute performance30xno data
ROPs328
TMUs4416

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 supportPCI-E 2.0 x 16no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16Ring Bus
Length241 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data
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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1603 MHz (3206 data rate)System Shared
Memory bandwidth102.6 GB/sno data

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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVIMini HDMINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.24.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.2
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 465 6.87
+53%
UHD Graphics 750 4.49

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 465 2650
+52.9%
UHD Graphics 750 1733

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Hitman 3 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.87 4.49
Recency 31 May 2010 30 March 2021
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 200 Watt 15 Watt

GTX 465 has a 53% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics 750, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 1233.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 465 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 750 in performance tests.


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 GTX 465
GeForce GTX 465
Intel UHD Graphics 750
UHD Graphics 750

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.


3.7 100 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 465 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 388 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 750 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.