GeForce GTX 260 vs 750 Ti

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GeForce GTX 260, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 750 Ti
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 60 Watt
10.11
+219%

750 Ti outperforms 260 by a whopping 219% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking411713
Place by popularity20not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.110.36
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGM107GT200
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date18 February 2014 (10 years ago)16 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 $449
Current price$357 (2.4x MSRP)$49 (0.1x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 750 Ti has 208% better value for money than GTX 260.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores640192
CUDA cores640192
Core clock speed1020 MHz576 MHz
Boost clock speed1085 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)60 Watt182 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate43.4036.9 billion/sec
Floating-point performance1,389 gflops476.9 gflops

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 Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length5.7" (14.5 cm)10.5" (267 mm) (26.7 cm)
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x 6-pin
SLI optionsno data+

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 amount4 GB896 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit448 Bit
Memory clock speed5.4 GB/s999 MHz
Memory bandwidth86.4 GB/s111.9 GB/s
Shared memory-no 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 ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMIDual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support4 displays+
HDMI++
HDCP+no data
Maximum VGA resolution2048x15362048x1536
Audio input for HDMIInternalS/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

Blu Ray 3D+no data
3D Gaming+no data
3D Vision+no data
3D Vision Live+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA++

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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
+219%
GTX 260 3.17

750 Ti outperforms 260 by 219% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 750 Ti 3903
+219%
GTX 260 1223

750 Ti outperforms 260 by 219% in Passmark.

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 HD49
+250%
14−16
−250%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+220%
10−11
−220%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+250%
8−9
−250%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+250%
14−16
−250%
Hitman 3 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+258%
12−14
−258%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+244%
9−10
−244%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+250%
8−9
−250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+244%
9−10
−244%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+260%
10−11
−260%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+220%
10−11
−220%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+250%
8−9
−250%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+250%
14−16
−250%
Hitman 3 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+258%
12−14
−258%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+244%
9−10
−244%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+250%
8−9
−250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+244%
9−10
−244%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+260%
10−11
−260%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+229%
7−8
−229%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+250%
14−16
−250%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+258%
12−14
−258%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+244%
9−10
−244%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+260%
10−11
−260%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+250%
8−9
−250%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+233%
6−7
−233%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%
Hitman 3 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+250%
6−7
−250%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+240%
5−6
−240%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Hitman 3 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+225%
4−5
−225%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%

This is how GTX 750 Ti and GTX 260 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 750 Ti is 250% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.11 3.17
Recency 18 February 2014 16 June 2008
Cost $149 $449
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 896 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt 182 Watt

The GeForce GTX 750 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 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 750 Ti
GeForce GTX 750 Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 260
GeForce GTX 260

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.


3.9 6009 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 750 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 565 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260 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.