GeForce GTX 950 vs 780 Ti

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 780 Ti and GeForce GTX 950, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 780 Ti
2013
3 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
24.64
+78.3%

780 Ti outperforms 950 by an impressive 78% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking205351
Place by popularitynot in top-10094
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.256.03
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code nameGK110GM206
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date7 November 2013 (10 years ago)20 August 2015 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$699 $159
Current price$461 (0.7x MSRP)$12.88 (0.1x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 950 has 15% better value for money than GTX 780 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 cores2880768
CUDA cores2880768
Core clock speed875 MHz1024 MHz
Boost clock speed928 MHz1188 MHz
Number of transistors7,080 million2,940 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt90 Watt
Texture fill rate210 billion/sec49.2 billion/sec
Floating-point performance5,345 gflops1,825 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)7.938" (20.2 cm)
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width2-slot2-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)no data350 Watt
Supplementary power connectorsOne 8-pin and one 6-pin1x 6-pins
SLI options++

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 GB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/s6.6 GB/s
Memory bandwidth336 GB/s105.6 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 DisplayPortDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2
Multi monitor support4 displays4 displays
HDMI++
HDCP++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x15362048x1536
G-SYNC supportno data+
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+no data
3D Gaming+no data
3D Vision+no data
GameStreamno data+
GeForce ShadowPlayno data+
GPU Boostno data2.0
GameWorksno data+
3D Vision Live+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.44.5
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
+78.3%
GTX 950 13.82

780 Ti outperforms 950 by 78% 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
+78.3%
GTX 950 5338

780 Ti outperforms 950 by 78% 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
+87%
GTX 950 8351

780 Ti outperforms 950 by 87% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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
+90.3%
GTX 950 6208

780 Ti outperforms 950 by 90% 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
+102%
GTX 950 37454

780 Ti outperforms 950 by 102% 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
+75.2%
GTX 950 16084

780 Ti outperforms 950 by 75% 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
+65.4%
GTX 950 15899

780 Ti outperforms 950 by 65% 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
+32.1%
GTX 950 15806

780 Ti outperforms 950 by 32% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

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
+151%
GTX 950 41

780 Ti outperforms 950 by 151% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

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
+86.3%
51
−86.3%
4K35−40
+66.7%
21
−66.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45 no data
Battlefield 5 80−85 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 no data
Far Cry 5 55−60 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65 no data
Forza Horizon 4 100−110 no data
Hitman 3 50−55 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100 no data
Metro Exodus 80−85 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75 no data

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45 no data
Battlefield 5 80−85 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 no data
Far Cry 5 55−60 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65 no data
Forza Horizon 4 100−110 no data
Hitman 3 50−55 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100 no data
Metro Exodus 80−85 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75 no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45 no data
Far Cry 5 55−60 no data
Forza Horizon 4 100−110 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 70−75 no data

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70 no data

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 no data
Far Cry 5 40−45 no data
Forza Horizon 4 45−50 no data
Hitman 3 27−30 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55 no data
Metro Exodus 45−50 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20 no data

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45 no data

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20 no data
Hitman 3 18−20 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30 no data

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 no data
Far Cry 5 14−16 no data
Forza Horizon 4 30−35 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30 no data
Metro Exodus 24−27 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12 no data

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24 no data

This is how GTX 780 Ti and GTX 950 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 780 Ti is 86% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 780 Ti is 67% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.64 13.82
Recency 7 November 2013 20 August 2015
Cost $699 $159
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 90 Watt

The GeForce GTX 780 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 950 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 950
GeForce GTX 950

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
4 1964 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 950 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.