GeForce GTX 560 Ti vs GTX 750
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 750 and GeForce GTX 560 Ti, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 750 outperforms GTX 560 Ti by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 512 | 536 |
| Place by popularity | 75 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.96 | 1.59 |
| Power efficiency | 10.80 | 3.20 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | GF114 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 18 February 2014 (11 years ago) | 25 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $119 | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 750 has 149% better value for money than GTX 560 Ti.
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 | 512 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1020 MHz | 823 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1085 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 1,950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 170 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 95 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 34.72 | 52.67 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.111 TFLOPS | 1.263 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 64 |
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 support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 229 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 6-pin |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5.0 GB/s | 1002 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 128.3 GB/s |
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 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMI | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | 3 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.1 |
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.
- Other tests
- Passmark
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- GeekBench 5 OpenCL
- Octane Render OctaneBench
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 65−70
+3.2%
| 63
−3.2%
|
| Full HD | 70−75
+7.7%
| 65
−7.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 1.70
+125%
| 3.83
−125%
|
- GTX 750 has 125% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
This is how GTX 750 and GTX 560 Ti compete in popular games:
- GTX 750 is 3% faster in 900p
- GTX 750 is 8% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 61 test (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.47 | 6.84 |
| Recency | 18 February 2014 | 25 January 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 55 Watt | 170 Watt |
GTX 750 has a 9.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 209.1% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 750 and GeForce GTX 560 Ti.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
