GeForce GTX 750 vs GTX 980 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Mobile with GeForce GTX 750, including specs and performance data.
GTX 980 Mobile outperforms GTX 750 by a whopping 149% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 257 | 498 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 87 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 19.85 | 4.52 |
| Power efficiency | 7.43 | 10.86 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Maxwell (2014−2017) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GM107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 21 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 18 February 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $395.82 | $119 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTX 980 Mobile has 339% better value for money than GTX 750.
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 | 2048 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 1020 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | 1085 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 1,870 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100-200 Watt | 55 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 136.2 | 34.72 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.358 TFLOPS | 1.111 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 32 |
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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 5.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 80 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | 3 displays |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | Internal |
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 | - | + |
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision Live | - | + |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 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.
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.
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 | 97
+177%
| 35−40
−177%
|
| 4K | 48
+167%
| 18−20
−167%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.08
−20%
| 3.40
+20%
|
| 4K | 8.25
−24.7%
| 6.61
+24.7%
|
- GTX 750 has 20% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 750 has 25% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+179%
|
14−16
−179%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+169%
|
16−18
−169%
|
| Elden Ring | 65−70
+156%
|
27−30
−156%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+152%
|
27−30
−152%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+179%
|
14−16
−179%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+169%
|
16−18
−169%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+163%
|
35−40
−163%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+176%
|
21−24
−176%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
+172%
|
18−20
−172%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+190%
|
30−33
−190%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+152%
|
27−30
−152%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+179%
|
14−16
−179%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+169%
|
16−18
−169%
|
| Dota 2 | 56
+167%
|
21−24
−167%
|
| Elden Ring | 65−70
+156%
|
27−30
−156%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+159%
|
27−30
−159%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+149%
|
45−50
−149%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+163%
|
35−40
−163%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 84
+180%
|
30−33
−180%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+176%
|
21−24
−176%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+158%
|
55−60
−158%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
+172%
|
18−20
−172%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+170%
|
30−33
−170%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+190%
|
30−33
−190%
|
| World of Tanks | 240−250
+154%
|
95−100
−154%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+152%
|
27−30
−152%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+179%
|
14−16
−179%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+169%
|
16−18
−169%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+153%
|
30−33
−153%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 70−75
+159%
|
27−30
−159%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+163%
|
35−40
−163%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 140−150
+158%
|
55−60
−158%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+190%
|
30−33
−190%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+150%
|
14−16
−150%
|
| Elden Ring | 35−40
+164%
|
14−16
−164%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+150%
|
14−16
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+166%
|
65−70
−166%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| World of Tanks | 140−150
+164%
|
55−60
−164%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+175%
|
16−18
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+150%
|
24−27
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+167%
|
21−24
−167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+172%
|
18−20
−172%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+150%
|
12−14
−150%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+171%
|
21−24
−171%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Dota 2 | 60
+150%
|
24−27
−150%
|
| Elden Ring | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+150%
|
24−27
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+171%
|
24−27
−171%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60
+150%
|
24−27
−150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+164%
|
14−16
−164%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+170%
|
10−11
−170%
|
This is how GTX 980 Mobile and GTX 750 compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 Mobile is 177% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 Mobile is 167% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.60 | 8.68 |
| Recency | 21 September 2015 | 18 February 2014 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 55 Watt |
GTX 980 Mobile has a 148.8% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
GTX 750, on the other hand, has 81.8% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 750 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 750 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
