GeForce GT 750M vs Radeon R9 280X

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 280X with GeForce GT 750M, including specs and performance data.

R9 280X
2013
3 GB GDDR5, 250 Watt
15.13
+340%

R9 280X outperforms GT 750M by a whopping 340% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking350723
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.43no data
Power efficiency4.224.80
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameTahitiGK107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)9 January 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$299 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores2048384
Core clock speedno data941 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz967 MHz
Number of transistors4,313 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate128.030.94
Floating-point processing power4.096 TFLOPS0.7427 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs12832

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0PCI Express 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin + 1 x 8-pinno 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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount3 GB4 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataDDR3/GDDR5
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1003 MHz
Memory bandwidth288 GB/s64.19 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI++
HDCP content protection-+
DisplayPort support+-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI-+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming-+

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
LiquidVR+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudio+-
UVD+-
DDMA audio+no data
Blu-Ray 3D Support-+
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder-+
Optimus-+
3D Vision / 3DTV Play-+

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 API
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.1
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. 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.

R9 280X 15.13
+340%
GT 750M 3.44

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.

R9 280X 5837
+340%
GT 750M 1328

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.

R9 280X 10792
+324%
GT 750M 2543

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.

R9 280X 33045
+244%
GT 750M 9618

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.

R9 280X 8343
+430%
GT 750M 1574

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.

R9 280X 52117
+382%
GT 750M 10822

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.

R9 280X 95
+327%
GT 750M 22

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 HD65
+225%
20
−225%
4K32
+357%
7−8
−357%

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.60no data
4K9.34no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+240%
10−11
−240%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+600%
7−8
−600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+400%
7−8
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+356%
9−10
−356%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+416%
18−20
−416%
Hitman 3 27−30
+263%
8−9
−263%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+208%
24−27
−208%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+920%
5−6
−920%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+356%
9−10
−356%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+250%
14−16
−250%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+90.2%
40−45
−90.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+240%
10−11
−240%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Battlefield 5 45−50
+600%
7−8
−600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+400%
7−8
−400%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+356%
9−10
−356%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+416%
18−20
−416%
Hitman 3 27−30
+263%
8−9
−263%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+208%
24−27
−208%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+920%
5−6
−920%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+356%
9−10
−356%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+250%
14−16
−250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 110
+267%
30
−267%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+90.2%
40−45
−90.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+240%
10−11
−240%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−33
+275%
8−9
−275%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
+300%
6−7
−300%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+400%
7−8
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+416%
18−20
−416%
Hitman 3 27−30
+263%
8−9
−263%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+208%
24−27
−208%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+250%
14−16
−250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+300%
5
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 75−80
+90.2%
40−45
−90.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+356%
9−10
−356%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+383%
6−7
−383%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+360%
5−6
−360%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+7800%
1−2
−7800%
Hitman 3 18−20
+125%
8−9
−125%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
+288%
8−9
−288%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95
+343%
21−24
−343%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+257%
7−8
−257%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Hitman 3 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80
+375%
16−18
−375%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%

This is how R9 280X and GT 750M compete in popular games:

  • R9 280X is 225% faster in 1080p
  • R9 280X is 357% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R9 280X is 7800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, R9 280X surpassed GT 750M in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.13 3.44
Recency 8 October 2013 9 January 2013
Maximum RAM amount 3 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 50 Watt

R9 280X has a 339.8% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 8 months.

GT 750M, on the other hand, has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 280X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 750M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 280X is a desktop card while GeForce GT 750M is a notebook 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.


AMD Radeon R9 280X
Radeon R9 280X
NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M
GeForce GT 750M

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.


4.1 688 votes

Rate Radeon R9 280X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 545 votes

Rate GeForce GT 750M 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.