HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) vs GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 750 Ti with HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge), including specs and performance data.
GTX 750 Ti outperforms HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) by a whopping 2876% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 451 | 1308 |
| Place by popularity | 30 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.00 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.59 | no data |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Gen. 6 Sandy Bridge (2011) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | Sandy Bridge |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 February 2014 (11 years ago) | 1 May 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 6 |
| Core clock speed | 1020 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1085 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 43.40 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.389 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 40 | no data |
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 | no data |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64/128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5.4 GB/s | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 86.4 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | no data |
| 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 10.1 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| 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.
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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 50
+614%
| 7
−614%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+250%
|
24−27
−250%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+1340%
|
10
−1340%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+590%
|
10−11
−590%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+250%
|
24−27
−250%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4100%
|
1−2
−4100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+590%
|
10−11
−590%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+250%
|
24−27
−250%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+3550%
|
2−3
−3550%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+2300%
|
2−3
−2300%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+3433%
|
3−4
−3433%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 20−22 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 50−55
+2400%
|
2−3
−2400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
This is how GTX 750 Ti and HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) compete in popular games:
- GTX 750 Ti is 614% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 750 Ti is 2400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 750 Ti surpassed HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) in all 33 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.12 | 0.34 |
| Recency | 18 February 2014 | 1 May 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
GTX 750 Ti has a 2876.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 750 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 750 Ti is a desktop card while HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
