GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs 980M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 980M with GeForce GTX 750 Ti, including specs and performance data.

GTX 980M
2014
8 GB GDDR5
19.02
+88.1%

980M outperforms 750 Ti by an impressive 88% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking275411
Place by popularitynot in top-10020
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.941.11
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Maxwell (2014−2018)
GPU code nameGM204GM107
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date7 October 2014 (9 years ago)18 February 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149
Current price$583 $357 (2.4x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 980M has 795% better value for money than GTX 750 Ti.

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 cores1536640
CUDA cores1536640
Core clock speed1038 MHz1020 MHz
Boost clock speed1127 MHz1085 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown60 Watt
Texture fill rate51.8443.40
Floating-point performance3,462 gflops1,389 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 980M 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 amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed2500 MHz5.4 GB/s
Memory bandwidth160 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
Vulkan1.1.1261.1.126
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 980M 19.02
+88.1%
GTX 750 Ti 10.11

980M outperforms 750 Ti by 88% 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 980M 7347
+88.2%
GTX 750 Ti 3903

980M outperforms 750 Ti by 88% 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 980M 12517
+133%
GTX 750 Ti 5378

980M outperforms 750 Ti by 133% 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 980M 31944
+47.8%
GTX 750 Ti 21608

980M outperforms 750 Ti by 48% 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 980M 9682
+125%
GTX 750 Ti 4294

980M outperforms 750 Ti by 125% 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 980M 65241
+108%
GTX 750 Ti 31349

980M outperforms 750 Ti by 108% 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 980M 21970
+94.7%
GTX 750 Ti 11286

980M outperforms 750 Ti by 95% 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 980M 25976
+159%
GTX 750 Ti 10040

980M outperforms 750 Ti by 159% 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 980M 21471
+71.8%
GTX 750 Ti 12499

980M outperforms 750 Ti by 72% 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 980M 111
+104%
GTX 750 Ti 54

980M outperforms 750 Ti by 104% 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 980M 66
+88.6%
GTX 750 Ti 35

980M outperforms 750 Ti by 89% 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 980M 1417
+162%
GTX 750 Ti 541

980M outperforms 750 Ti by 162% 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:

900p173
+92.2%
90−95
−92.2%
Full HD74
+51%
49
−51%
1440p31
+93.8%
16−18
−93.8%
4K28
+100%
14−16
−100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 30−33 no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 51 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35 no data
Battlefield 5 67 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33 no data
Far Cry 5 62 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 59 no data
Forza Horizon 4 74 no data
Hitman 3 35−40 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80 no data
Metro Exodus 65 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60 no data

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 44 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35 no data
Battlefield 5 57 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33 no data
Far Cry 5 52 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 47 no data
Forza Horizon 4 191 no data
Hitman 3 35−40 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80 no data
Metro Exodus 55 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 61 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60 no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 26 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 30−33 no data
Far Cry 5 38 no data
Forza Horizon 4 47 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 75−80 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 60−65 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60 no data

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55 no data

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 33 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 35 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 no data
Far Cry 5 34 no data
Forza Horizon 4 39 no data
Hitman 3 21−24 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40 no data
Metro Exodus 38 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 12−14 no data

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35 no data

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 17 no data
Hitman 3 14−16 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22 no data

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 no data
Far Cry 5 12 no data
Forza Horizon 4 26 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24 no data
Metro Exodus 20 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9 no data

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18 no data

This is how GTX 980M and GTX 750 Ti compete in popular games:

  • GTX 980M is 92% faster in 900p
  • GTX 980M is 51% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 980M is 94% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 980M is 100% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 19.02 10.11
Recency 7 October 2014 18 February 2014
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB

The GeForce GTX 980M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 750 Ti in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980M 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 980M
GeForce GTX 980M
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.


4.1 319 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 980M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 6015 votes

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.