GeForce GT 635M vs GT 750M

Place in the ranking	727	994
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	4.75	2.84
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GK107	GF116
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	9 January 2013 (11 years ago)	22 March 2012 (12 years ago)

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 cores	384	Up to 144
Core clock speed	941 MHz	Up to 675 MHz
Boost clock speed	967 MHz	753 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	1,170 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	30.94	16.20
Floating-point processing power	0.7427 TFLOPS	0.3888 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	32	24

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 size	medium sized	large
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	PCI Express 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16

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 type	DDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Standard memory configuration	DDR3/GDDR5	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	Up to 192bit
Memory clock speed	1003 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	64.19 GB/s	Up to 43.2 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 Connectors	No outputs	No outputs
eDP 1.2 signal support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
LVDS signal support	Up to 1920x1200	no data
VGA аnalog display support	Up to 2048x1536	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
HDMI	+	+
HDCP	-	+
HDCP content protection	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	Up to 2048x1536
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.

3D Blu-Ray	-	+
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.

DirectX	12 API	12 API
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.5
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
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.

GT 750M 3.46
+139%

GT 635M 1.45

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.

GT 750M 1332
+139%

GT 635M 557

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.

GT 750M 2543
+129%

GT 635M 1110

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.

GT 750M 9618
+92.6%

GT 635M 4995

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.

GT 750M 1574
+110%

GT 635M 750

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.

GT 750M 4262
+68%

GT 635M 2537

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.

GT 750M 12
+100%

GT 635M 6

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 HD

−20%

24
+20%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7
+50%

4−5

−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +66.7%	14−16 −66.7%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +24.2%	30−35 −24.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +66.7%	14−16 −66.7%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30 +173%	10−12 −173%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +24.2%	30−35 −24.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +375%	4−5 −375%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +66.7%	14−16 −66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +75%	8−9 −75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5 −120%	10−12 +120%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +24.2%	30−35 −24.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

9−10
+350%

2−3

−350%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +200%	2−3 −200%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21−24 +200%	7−8 −200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+75%

4−5

−75%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

This is how GT 750M and GT 635M compete in popular games:

GT 635M is 20% faster in 1080p

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

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 750M is 375% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 635M is 120% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 750M is ahead in 47 tests (96%)
GT 635M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.46	1.45
Recency	9 January 2013	22 March 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	35 Watt

GT 750M has a 138.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 635M, on the other hand, has 42.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 750M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 635M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.