ATI Radeon IGP 340M vs GeForce GTX 750 Ti

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5081605
Place by popularity39not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.38no data
Power efficiency11.97no data
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Rage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code nameGM107RS200
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date18 February 2014 (12 years ago)5 October 2002 (23 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores6402
Core clock speed1020 MHz183 MHz
Boost clock speed1085 MHz180 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million30 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm180 nm
Power consumption (TDP)60 Wattno data
Texture fill rate43.400.37
Floating-point processing power1.389 TFLOPSno data
ROPs162
TMUs402
L1 Cache320 KBno data
L2 Cache2 MBno 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 supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16AGP 4x
Length145 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed5.4 GB/sSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth86.4 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMINo outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno 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 support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)7.0
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.61.4
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmarks

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



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 3899
+194850%
Samples: 24095
ATI IGP 340M 2
Samples: 4

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 HD50no data

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.98no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 50−55 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 18−20 no data

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 40−45 no data
Counter-Strike 2 50−55 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 0−1
Far Cry 5 30−35 no data
Fortnite 55−60 no data
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+1950%
2−3
−1950%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+467%
6−7
−467%
Valorant 90−95
+296%
21−24
−296%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45 no data
Counter-Strike 2 50−55 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+1489%
9−10
−1489%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 0−1
Dota 2 65−70
+886%
7−8
−886%
Far Cry 5 30−35 no data
Fortnite 55−60 no data
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+1950%
2−3
−1950%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40 no data
Metro Exodus 18−20 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+467%
6−7
−467%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%
Valorant 90−95
+296%
21−24
−296%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20 0−1
Dota 2 65−70
+886%
7−8
−886%
Far Cry 5 30−35 no data
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+1950%
2−3
−1950%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+467%
6−7
−467%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+500%
4−5
−500%
Valorant 90−95
+296%
21−24
−296%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 55−60 no data

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14 no data
Metro Exodus 10−11 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50 no data
Valorant 100−110 no data

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9 no data
Far Cry 5 20−22 no data
Forza Horizon 4 21−24 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 20−22 no data

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Metro Exodus 5−6 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11 no data
Valorant 45−50 0−1

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−12 no data
Counter-Strike 2 4−5 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 no data
Dota 2 35−40 no data
Far Cry 5 9−10 no data
Forza Horizon 4 16−18 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 750 Ti is 1950% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 750 Ti surpassed ATI IGP 340M in all 19 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Recency 18 February 2014 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 28 nm 180 nm

GTX 750 Ti has an age advantage of 11 years, and a 543% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 750 Ti and Radeon IGP 340M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 750 Ti is a desktop graphics card while Radeon IGP 340M 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 7849 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 340M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 750 Ti or Radeon IGP 340M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.