GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs 965M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

GTX 965M
2015
4 GB GDDR5
9.79

750 Ti outperforms 965M by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking423411
Place by popularitynot in top-10020
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.961.10
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code nameN16E-GS, N16E-GRGM107
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date5 January 2015 (9 years ago)18 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149
Current price$1546 $357 (2.4x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 750 Ti has 15% better value for money than GTX 965M.

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 cores1024640
CUDA cores1024640
Core clock speed944 MHz1020 MHz
Boost clock speed950 / 1151 MHz1085 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown60 Watt
Texture fill rate73.6043.40
Floating-point performance2,355 gflops1,389 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 965M and GeForce GTX 750 Ti compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0PCI Express 3.0
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data5.7" (14.5 cm)
Heightno data4.376" (11.1 cm)
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
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 amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed2500 MHz5.4 GB/s
Memory bandwidth80 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 ConnectorsNo outputsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMI
Multi monitor supportno data4 displays
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI++
HDCPno data+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
G-SYNC support+no data
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

Supported technologies

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

Blu Ray 3Dno data+
3D Gamingno data+
3D Visionno data+
GameStream+no data
GeForce ShadowPlay+no data
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+no data
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+no data
Optimus+no data
3D Vision Liveno data+
BatteryBoost+no data
Ansel+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.11.2
Vulkan1.11.1.126
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 965M 9.79
GTX 750 Ti 10.10
+3.2%

750 Ti outperforms 965M by 3% 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 965M 3784
GTX 750 Ti 3903
+3.1%

750 Ti outperforms 965M by 3% 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 965M 7322
+36.1%
GTX 750 Ti 5378

965M outperforms 750 Ti by 36% 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 965M 23562
+9%
GTX 750 Ti 21608

965M outperforms 750 Ti by 9% 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 965M 5536
+28.9%
GTX 750 Ti 4294

965M outperforms 750 Ti by 29% 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 965M 34748
+10.8%
GTX 750 Ti 31349

965M outperforms 750 Ti by 11% 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 965M 14537
+28.9%
GTX 750 Ti 11278

965M outperforms 750 Ti by 29% 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 965M 16483
+64.2%
GTX 750 Ti 10040

965M outperforms 750 Ti by 64% 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 965M 13861
+10.9%
GTX 750 Ti 12499

965M outperforms 750 Ti by 11% 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 965M 66
+22.1%
GTX 750 Ti 54

965M outperforms 750 Ti by 22% 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 965M 40
+14.3%
GTX 750 Ti 35

965M outperforms 750 Ti by 14% 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 965M 574
+6.1%
GTX 750 Ti 541

965M outperforms 750 Ti by 6% 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 HD47
−4.3%
49
+4.3%
1440p26
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%
4K21
+0%
21−24
+0%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 31
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Battlefield 5 49
+53.1%
30−35
−53.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 40
+42.9%
27−30
−42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 47
−4.3%
45−50
+4.3%
Hitman 3 18−20
−5.6%
18−20
+5.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 46
+7%
40−45
−7%
Metro Exodus 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45
+60.7%
27−30
−60.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−2.9%
35−40
+2.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Battlefield 5 37
+15.6%
30−35
−15.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 29
+3.6%
27−30
−3.6%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
−2.1%
45−50
+2.1%
Hitman 3 18−20
−5.6%
18−20
+5.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
−2.4%
40−45
+2.4%
Metro Exodus 18
−72.2%
30−35
+72.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 36
+28.6%
27−30
−28.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+47.6%
21−24
−47.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−2.9%
35−40
+2.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 13
−61.5%
21−24
+61.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−6.7%
16−18
+6.7%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 28
−75%
45−50
+75%
Horizon Zero Dawn 23
−87%
40−45
+87%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−2.9%
35−40
+2.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 32
+14.3%
27−30
−14.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
−5.3%
20−22
+5.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 22
+37.5%
16−18
−37.5%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
−5.6%
18−20
+5.6%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18
−16.7%
21−24
+16.7%
Metro Exodus 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21
+23.5%
16−18
−23.5%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3
−100%
6−7
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Metro Exodus 31
+210%
10−11
−210%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10
+0%
10−11
+0%

This is how GTX 965M and GTX 750 Ti compete in popular games:

  • GTX 750 Ti is 4% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 965M is 8% faster in 1440p
  • A tie in 4K

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

  • in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 965M is 210% faster.
  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 750 Ti is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 965M is ahead in 16 tests (22%)
  • GTX 750 Ti is ahead in 34 tests (47%)
  • there's a draw in 22 tests (31%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.79 10.10
Recency 5 January 2015 18 February 2014

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 965M and GeForce GTX 750 Ti.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 965M is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 750 Ti is a desktop one.


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 965M
GeForce GTX 965M
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.


4 106 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 965M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 5991 vote

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.