GeForce GTX 1630 vs GTX 750 Ti

Place in the ranking	445	388
Place by popularity	31	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	4.78	no data
Power efficiency	11.71	11.97
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GM107	TU117
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	18 February 2014 (10 years ago)	28 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	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 cores	640	512
Core clock speed	1020 MHz	1740 MHz
Boost clock speed	1085 MHz	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	1,870 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	60 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	43.40	57.12
Floating-point processing power	1.389 TFLOPS	1.828 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	40	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).

Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	145 mm	145 mm
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	5.4 GB/s	1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	86.4 GB/s	96 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	One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMI	1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
Multi monitor support	4 displays	no data
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

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	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
CUDA	+	7.5

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 750 Ti 10.11

GTX 1630 12.92
+27.8%

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 750 Ti 3901

GTX 1630 4985
+27.8%

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

−25%

65−70
+25%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

2.87

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

16−18

−12.5%

18−20
+12.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 −25%	30−33 +25%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 −20%	18−20 +20%
Battlefield 5	30−35 −25%	40−45 +25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 −20%	24−27 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −17.4%	27−30 +17.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 −25%	35−40 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 −26.9%	85−90 +26.9%
Hitman 3	18−20 −26.3%	24−27 +26.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 −27.3%	70−75 +27.3%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −25%	40−45 +25%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 −25%	35−40 +25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 −21.2%	40−45 +21.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −27%	80−85 +27%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 −25%	30−33 +25%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 −20%	18−20 +20%
Battlefield 5	30−35 −25%	40−45 +25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 −20%	24−27 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −17.4%	27−30 +17.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	27−30 −25%	35−40 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 −26.9%	85−90 +26.9%
Hitman 3	18−20 −26.3%	24−27 +26.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 −27.3%	70−75 +27.3%
Metro Exodus	30−35 −25%	40−45 +25%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30 −25%	35−40 +25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 −21.2%	40−45 +21.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 −11.1%	30−33 +11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −27%	80−85 +27%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 −25%	30−33 +25%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	14−16 −20%	18−20 +20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20−22 −20%	24−27 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −12.5%	18−20 +12.5%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −17.4%	27−30 +17.4%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 −26.9%	85−90 +26.9%
Hitman 3	18−20 −26.3%	24−27 +26.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 −27.3%	70−75 +27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 −21.2%	40−45 +21.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 −11.1%	30−33 +11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −27%	80−85 +27%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

27−30

−25%

35−40
+25%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	20−22 −20%	24−27 +20%
Far Cry New Dawn	14−16 −20%	18−20 +20%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −16.7%	14−16 +16.7%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −22.2%	55−60 +22.2%
Hitman 3	12−14 −23.1%	16−18 +23.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −14.3%	24−27 +14.3%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −20%	18−20 +20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −23.1%	16−18 +23.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60−65 −25%	80−85 +25%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

−23.5%

21−24
+23.5%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Hitman 3	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	40−45 −25%	55−60 +25%
Metro Exodus	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 −25%	10−11 +25%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −20%	6−7 +20%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −23.1%	16−18 +23.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

−20%

12−14
+20%

This is how GTX 750 Ti and GTX 1630 compete in popular games:

GTX 1630 is 25% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.11	12.92
Recency	18 February 2014	28 June 2022
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	60 Watt	75 Watt

GTX 750 Ti has 25% lower power consumption.

GTX 1630, on the other hand, has a 27.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1630 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 750 Ti in performance tests.

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