GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs 780 Ti

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 780 Ti and GeForce GTX 750 Ti, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 780 Ti
2013
3 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
24.64
+144%

780 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by a whopping 144% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking205411
Place by popularitynot in top-10020
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.261.11
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code nameGK110GM107
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date7 November 2013 (10 years ago)18 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$699 $149
Current price$461 (0.7x MSRP)$357 (2.4x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 780 Ti has 374% better value for money than GTX 750 Ti.

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 cores2880640
CUDA cores2880640
Core clock speed875 MHz1020 MHz
Boost clock speed928 MHz1085 MHz
Number of transistors7,080 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate210 billion/sec43.40
Floating-point performance5,345 gflops1,389 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 3.0PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length10.5" (26.7 cm)5.7" (14.5 cm)
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsOne 8-pin and one 6-pinNone
SLI options+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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount3 GB4 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s5.4 GB/s
Memory bandwidth336 GB/s86.4 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 ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPortOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMI
Multi monitor support4 displays4 displays
HDMI++
HDCP++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x15362048x1536
Audio input for HDMIInternalInternal

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.126
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 780 Ti 24.64
+144%
GTX 750 Ti 10.11

780 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 144% 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 780 Ti 9516
+144%
GTX 750 Ti 3903

780 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 144% in Passmark.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 780 Ti 15619
+190%
GTX 750 Ti 5378

780 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 190% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 780 Ti 38813
+79.6%
GTX 750 Ti 21608

780 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 80% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 780 Ti 11812
+175%
GTX 750 Ti 4294

780 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 175% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 780 Ti 75688
+141%
GTX 750 Ti 31349

780 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 141% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

GTX 780 Ti 28179
+150%
GTX 750 Ti 11281

780 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 150% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

GTX 780 Ti 26297
+162%
GTX 750 Ti 10040

780 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 162% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 780 Ti 20877
+67%
GTX 750 Ti 12499

780 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 67% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 780 Ti 143
+164%
GTX 750 Ti 54

780 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 164% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 780 Ti 103
+194%
GTX 750 Ti 35

780 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 194% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

Unigine Heaven 4.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013.

Benchmark coverage: 1%

GTX 780 Ti 1812
+235%
GTX 750 Ti 541

780 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 235% in Unigine Heaven 4.0.

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 HD95
+93.9%
49
−93.9%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+138%
21−24
−138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+133%
14−16
−133%
Battlefield 5 75−80
+134%
30−35
−134%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+125%
20−22
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+139%
21−24
−139%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+132%
27−30
−132%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+124%
45−50
−124%
Hitman 3 45−50
+137%
18−20
−137%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−105
+133%
40−45
−133%
Metro Exodus 75−80
+142%
30−35
−142%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+132%
27−30
−132%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+142%
30−35
−142%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+136%
35−40
−136%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+138%
21−24
−138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+133%
14−16
−133%
Battlefield 5 75−80
+134%
30−35
−134%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+125%
20−22
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+139%
21−24
−139%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+132%
27−30
−132%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+124%
45−50
−124%
Hitman 3 45−50
+137%
18−20
−137%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−105
+133%
40−45
−133%
Metro Exodus 75−80
+142%
30−35
−142%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+132%
27−30
−132%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+142%
30−35
−142%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+138%
21−24
−138%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+136%
35−40
−136%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+138%
21−24
−138%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+133%
14−16
−133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+125%
20−22
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+139%
21−24
−139%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+124%
45−50
−124%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−105
+133%
40−45
−133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+142%
30−35
−142%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+138%
21−24
−138%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+136%
35−40
−136%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+132%
27−30
−132%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+125%
20−22
−125%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+135%
16−18
−135%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+125%
12−14
−125%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+119%
16−18
−119%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+137%
18−20
−137%
Hitman 3 30−33
+131%
12−14
−131%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+138%
21−24
−138%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+133%
14−16
−133%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
+131%
12−14
−131%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+135%
16−18
−135%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+133%
9−10
−133%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Hitman 3 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Forza Horizon 4 30−33
+131%
12−14
−131%
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+140%
10−11
−140%

This is how GTX 780 Ti and GTX 750 Ti compete in popular games:

  • GTX 780 Ti is 94% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.64 10.11
Recency 7 November 2013 18 February 2014
Cost $699 $149
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 60 Watt

The GeForce GTX 780 Ti 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.

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 780 Ti
GeForce GTX 780 Ti
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti
GeForce GTX 750 Ti

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.


4 628 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 780 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 6009 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 750 Ti 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.