Rx 570 vs gtx 750ti: AMD Radeon RX 570 vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti: What is the difference?

AMD Radeon RX 570 vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti: What is the difference?

50points

AMD Radeon RX 570

41points

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

EVGAEVGA Superclocked

vs

54 facts in comparison

AMD Radeon RX 570

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

Why is AMD Radeon RX 570 better than Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti?

  • 148MHz faster GPU clock speed?
    1168MHzvs1020MHz
  • 3.69 TFLOPS higher floating-point performance?
    5 TFLOPSvs1.31 TFLOPS
  • 23.5 GPixel/s higher pixel rate?
    39.8 GPixel/svs16.3 GPixel/s
  • 400MHz faster memory clock speed?
    1750MHzvs1350MHz
  • 1600MHz higher effective memory clock speed?
    7000MHzvs5400MHz
  • 2x more VRAM?
    4GBvs2GB
  • 118.4 GTexels/s higher texture rate?
    159.2 GTexels/svs40.8 GTexels/s
  • 0. 8 newer version of DirectX?
    12vs11.2

Why is Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti better than AMD Radeon RX 570?

  • 60W lower TDP?
    60Wvs120W
  • 12°C lower load GPU temperature?
    62°Cvs74°C
  • Supports 3D?
  • 6°C lower idle GPU temperature?
    25°Cvs31°C
  • 10W lower power consumption when idle?
    73Wvs83W
  • 1 more DVI outputs?
    2vs1
  • 96mm narrower?
    145mmvs241mm

Which are the most popular comparisons?

AMD Radeon RX 570

vs

Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

vs

AMD Radeon RX 550

AMD Radeon RX 570

vs

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

vs

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

AMD Radeon RX 570

vs

Gigabyte Radeon RX 6500 XT Gaming OC

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

vs

MSI Radeon RX 580

AMD Radeon RX 570

vs

AMD Radeon RX 580

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

vs

Nvidia GeForce GT 1030 DDR4

AMD Radeon RX 570

vs

MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Gaming

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

vs

AMD Radeon Vega 8

AMD Radeon RX 570

vs

AMD Radeon RX 6400

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

vs

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1650

AMD Radeon RX 570

vs

Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

vs

AMD Radeon RX 6400

AMD Radeon RX 570

vs

Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

vs

Nvidia GeForce GTX 960

AMD Radeon RX 570

vs

Nvidia Geforce GTX 1660 Super

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

vs

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750

AMD Radeon RX 570

vs

Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

vs

Zotac GeForce GTX 1050 Ti OC Edition

Price comparison

User reviews

Overall Rating

AMD Radeon RX 570

2 User reviews

AMD Radeon RX 570

8. 5/10

2 User reviews

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

2 User reviews

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

10.0/10

2 User reviews

Features

Value for money

9.5/10

2 votes

10.0/10

2 votes

Gaming

8.5/10

2 votes

8.5/10

2 votes

Performance

8.5/10

2 votes

7.5/10

2 votes

Fan noise

7.5/10

2 votes

5.5/10

2 votes

Reliability

8.5/10

2 votes

10.0/10

2 votes

Performance

1.GPU clock speed

1168MHz

1020MHz

The graphics processing unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.

2.GPU turbo

1244MHz

1085MHz

When the GPU is running below its limitations, it can boost to a higher clock speed in order to give increased performance.

3. pixel rate

39.8 GPixel/s

16.3 GPixel/s

The number of pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.

4.floating-point performance

5 TFLOPS

1.31 TFLOPS

Floating-point performance is a measurement of the raw processing power of the GPU.

5.texture rate

159.2 GTexels/s

40.8 GTexels/s

The number of textured pixels that can be rendered to the screen every second.

6.GPU memory speed

1750MHz

1350MHz

The memory clock speed is one aspect that determines the memory bandwidth.

7.shading units

Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors within the graphics card that are responsible for processing different aspects of the image.

8.texture mapping units (TMUs)

TMUs take textures and map them to the geometry of a 3D scene. More TMUs will typically mean that texture information is processed faster.

9.render output units (ROPs)

The ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, writing the final pixel data to memory and carrying out other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the look of graphics.

Memory

1.effective memory speed

7000MHz

5400MHz

The effective memory clock speed is calculated from the size and data rate of the memory. Higher clock speeds can give increased performance in games and other apps.

2.maximum memory bandwidth

224GB/s

86.4GB/s

This is the maximum rate that data can be read from or stored into memory.

3.VRAM

VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of a graphics card. More VRAM generally allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.

4.memory bus width

256bit

128bit

A wider bus width means that it can carry more data per cycle. It is an important factor of memory performance, and therefore the general performance of the graphics card.

5.version of GDDR memory

Newer versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher transfer rates that give increased performance.

6.Supports ECC memory

✖AMD Radeon RX 570

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

Error-correcting code memory can detect and correct data corruption. It is used when is it essential to avoid corruption, such as scientific computing or when running a server.

Features

1.DirectX version

DirectX is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.

2.OpenGL version

OpenGL is used in games, with newer versions supporting better graphics.

3.OpenCL version

Some apps use OpenCL to apply the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions introduce more functionality and better performance.

4.Supports multi-display technology

✔AMD Radeon RX 570

✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

The graphics card supports multi-display technology. This allows you to configure multiple monitors in order to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as having a wider field of view.

5.load GPU temperature

A lower load temperature means that the card produces less heat and its cooling system performs better.

6.supports ray tracing

✖AMD Radeon RX 570

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows, and reflections in games.

7. Supports 3D

✖AMD Radeon RX 570

✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D display and glasses).

8.supports DLSS

✖AMD Radeon RX 570

✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an upscaling technology powered by AI. It allows the graphics card to render games at a lower resolution and upscale them to a higher resolution with near-native visual quality and increased performance. DLSS is only available on select games.

9.PassMark (G3D) result

This benchmark measures the graphics performance of a video card. Source: PassMark.

Ports

1.has an HDMI output

✔AMD Radeon RX 570

✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

Devices with a HDMI or mini HDMI port can transfer high definition video and audio to a display.

2.HDMI ports

More HDMI ports mean that you can simultaneously connect numerous devices, such as video game consoles and set-top boxes.

3.HDMI version

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (AMD Radeon RX 570)

Unknown. Help us by suggesting a value. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti)

Newer versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth, which allows for higher resolutions and frame rates.

4.DisplayPort outputs

Allows you to connect to a display using DisplayPort.

5.DVI outputs

Allows you to connect to a display using DVI.

6.mini DisplayPort outputs

Allows you to connect to a display using mini-DisplayPort.

Price comparison

Cancel

Which are the best graphics cards?

AMD Radeon RX 570 (Desktop) vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs AMD Radeon RX 570 (Laptop)

The following benchmarks stem from our benchmarks of review laptops. The performance depends on the used graphics memory, clock rate, processor, system settings, drivers, and operating systems. So the results don’t have to be representative for all laptops with this GPU. For detailed information on the benchmark results, click on the fps number.

For more games that might be playable and a list of all games and graphics cards visit our Gaming List

log 01. 15:56:30

#0 checking url part for id 9873 +0s … 0s

#1 checking url part for id 5600 +0s … 0s

#2 checking url part for id 7678 +0s … 0s

#3 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s … 0s

#4 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Tue, 27 Sep 2022 17:27:11 +0200 +0s … 0s

#5 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.087s … 0.087s

#6 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.087s

#7 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.087s

#8 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.087s

#9 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.087s

#10 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.087s

#11 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.087s

#12 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.087s

#13 composed specs +0s … 0.087s

#14 did output specs +0s … 0.087s

#15 start showIntegratedCPUs +0s … 0.087s

#16 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.04s … 0.128s

#17 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.003s … 0.131s

#18 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.131s

#19 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.131s

#20 getting avg benchmarks for device 9873 +0.001s … 0.133s

#21 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.001s … 0.133s

#22 got single benchmarks 9873 +0.007s … 0.14s

#23 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.003s … 0.143s

#24 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0.002s . .. 0.145s

#25 getting avg benchmarks for device 5600 +0s … 0.145s

#26 got single benchmarks 5600 +0.005s … 0.151s

#27 getting avg benchmarks for device 7678 +0s … 0.151s

#28 got single benchmarks 7678 +0s … 0.151s

#29 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s … 0.151s

#30 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.151s

#31 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.152s

#32 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.152s

#33 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.153s

#34 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.153s

#35 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.153s

#36 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.154s

#37 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.154s

#38 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.155s

#39 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.155s

#40 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.155s

#41 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.156s

#42 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.156s

#43 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.157s

#44 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.157s

#45 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.157s

#46 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.158s

#47 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.158s

#48 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.159s

#49 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.159s

#50 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.16s

#51 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.16s

#52 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.16s

#53 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.161s

#54 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.161s

#55 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.163s

#56 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.163s

#57 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.164s

#58 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.164s

#59 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.164s

#60 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.165s

#61 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.165s

#62 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.166s

#63 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.166s

#64 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.166s

#65 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.167s

#66 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.167s

#67 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.168s

#68 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.168s

#69 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.168s

#70 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.169s

#71 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.169s

#72 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s . .. 0.169s

#73 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.17s

#74 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.171s

#75 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.171s

#76 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.172s

#77 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.172s

#78 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.172s

#79 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.173s

#80 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0s … 0.173s

#81 linkCache_getLink no uid found +0.001s … 0.174s

#82 min, max, avg, median took s +0.001s … 0.174s

#83 before gaming benchmark output +0s … 0.174s

#84 Got 386 rows for game benchmarks. +0.014s … 0.188s

#85 composed SQL query for gamebenchmarks +0s … 0.188s

#86 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#87 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0. 188s

#88 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#89 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#90 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#91 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#92 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#93 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#94 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#95 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#96 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#97 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#98 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#99 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#100 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#101 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#102 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.188s

#103 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#104 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#105 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#106 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#107 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#108 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#109 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#110 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#111 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#112 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#113 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#114 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.188s

#115 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#116 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.189s

#117 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#118 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#119 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#120 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#121 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#122 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#123 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#124 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#125 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#126 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#127 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#128 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#129 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#130 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.189s

#131 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#132 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#133 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#134 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#135 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#136 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#137 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#138 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#139 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#140 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#141 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#142 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#143 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#144 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.189s

#145 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#146 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#147 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#148 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#149 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#150 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#151 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#152 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#153 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#154 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#155 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#156 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#157 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#158 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.189s

#159 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#160 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#161 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#162 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#163 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#164 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#165 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#166 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#167 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#168 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#169 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.189s

#170 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#171 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#172 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.19s

#173 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#174 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#175 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#176 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#177 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#178 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#179 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#180 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#181 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#182 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#183 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#184 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#185 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#186 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#187 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.19s

#188 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#189 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#190 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#191 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#192 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#193 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#194 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#195 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#196 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#197 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#198 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#199 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#200 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#201 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#202 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.19s

#203 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#204 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#205 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#206 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#207 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#208 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#209 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#210 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#211 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#212 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#213 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#214 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#215 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#216 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#217 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.19s

#218 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#219 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#220 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#221 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#222 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#223 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#224 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#225 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#226 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.19s

#227 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#228 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#229 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#230 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#231 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0. 191s

#232 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#233 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#234 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#235 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#236 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#237 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#238 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#239 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#240 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#241 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#242 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#243 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#244 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#245 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.191s

#246 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#247 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#248 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#249 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#250 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#251 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#252 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#253 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#254 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#255 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#256 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#257 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#258 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#259 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.191s

#260 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#261 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#262 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#263 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#264 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#265 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#266 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#267 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#268 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#269 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#270 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#271 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#272 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#273 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.191s

#274 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#275 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#276 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#277 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#278 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#279 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#280 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.191s

#281 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#282 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#283 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#284 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#285 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#286 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#287 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.192s

#288 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#289 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#290 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#291 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#292 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#293 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#294 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#295 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#296 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#297 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#298 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#299 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#300 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#301 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.192s

#302 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#303 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#304 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#305 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#306 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#307 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#308 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#309 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#310 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#311 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#312 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#313 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#314 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#315 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.192s

#316 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#317 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#318 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#319 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#320 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#321 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#322 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#323 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#324 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.192s

#325 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#326 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#327 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#328 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#329 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.193s

#330 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#331 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#332 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#333 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#334 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#335 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#336 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#337 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#338 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#339 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#340 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#341 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#342 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#343 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.193s

#344 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#345 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#346 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#347 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#348 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#349 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#350 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.193s

#351 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#352 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#353 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#354 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#355 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#356 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#357 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.194s

#358 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#359 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#360 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#361 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#362 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#363 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#364 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#365 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#366 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#367 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#368 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#369 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#370 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#371 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.194s

#372 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#373 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#374 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#375 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#376 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#377 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#378 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#379 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#380 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.194s

#381 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s

#382 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s

#383 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s

#384 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s

#385 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s . .. 0.195s

#386 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s

#387 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s

#388 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s

#389 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s

#390 linkCache_getLink using $NBC_LINKCACHE +0s … 0.195s

#391 got data and put it in $dataArray +0.003s … 0.197s

#392 benchmarks composed for output. +0.055s … 0.253s

#393 calculated avg scores. +0s … 0.253s

#394 return log +0.001s … 0.254s

GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs Radeon RX 570 Graphics cards Comparison

When comparing GeForce GTX 750 Ti and Radeon RX 570, we look primarily at benchmarks and game tests. But it is not only about the numbers. Often you can find third-party models with higher clock speeds, better cooling, or a customizable RGB lighting. Not all of them will have all the features you need. Another thing to consider is the port selection. Most graphics cards have at least one DisplayPort and HDMI interface, but some monitors require DVI. Before you buy, check the TDP of the graphics card — this characteristic will help you estimate the consumption of the graphics card. You may even have to upgrade your PSU to meet its requirements. An important factor when choosing between GeForce GTX 750 Ti and Radeon RX 570 is the price. Does the additional cost justify the performance hit? Our comparison should help you make the right decision.

GeForce GTX 750 Ti

Check Price

Radeon RX 570

Check Price

Main Specs

  GeForce GTX 750 Ti Radeon RX 570
Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt 120 Watt
Interface PCIe 3. 0 x16 PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors None 1x 6-pin
Memory type GDDR5 GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Display Connectors 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
 

Check Price

Check Price

  • Radeon RX 570 has 100% more power consumption, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
  • Both video cards are using PCIe 3.0 x16 interface connection to a motherboard.
  • Radeon RX 570 has 6 GB more memory, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
  • Both cards are used in Desktops.
  • GeForce GTX 750 Ti is build with Maxwell architecture, and Radeon RX 570 — with Polaris.
  • Core clock speed of Radeon RX 570 is 148 MHz higher, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
  • GeForce GTX 750 Ti is manufactured by 28 nm process technology, and Radeon RX 570 — by 14 nm process technology.
  • Radeon RX 570 is 236 mm longer, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
  • Memory clock speed of Radeon RX 570 is 6995 MHz higher, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.

Game benchmarks

Assassin’s Creed OdysseyBattlefield 5Call of Duty: WarzoneCounter-Strike: Global OffensiveCyberpunk 2077Dota 2Far Cry 5FortniteForza Horizon 4Grand Theft Auto VMetro ExodusMinecraftPLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDSRed Dead Redemption 2The Witcher 3: Wild HuntWorld of Tanks
high / 1080p 20−22 35−40
ultra / 1080p 12−14 21−24
QHD / 1440p 6−7 16−18
4K / 2160p 5−6 10−11
low / 720p 40−45 60−65
medium / 1080p 24−27 40−45
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX 570 in Assassin’s Creed Odyssey is 68% more, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
high / 1080p 30−35 55−60
ultra / 1080p 27−30 45−50
QHD / 1440p 10−12 35−40
4K / 2160p 8−9 18−20
low / 720p 65−70 100−110
medium / 1080p 35−40 60−65
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX 570 in Battlefield 5 is 80% more, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
low / 768p 50−55 50−55
QHD / 1440p 0−1 0−1
GeForce GTX 750 Ti and Radeon RX 570 have the same average FPS in Call of Duty: Warzone.
low / 768p 230−240 250−260
medium / 768p 200−210 220−230
ultra / 1080p 120−130 180−190
QHD / 1440p 90−95 110−120
4K / 2160p 50−55 70−75
high / 768p 160−170 210−220
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX 570 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 22% more, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
low / 768p 60−65 60−65
ultra / 1080p 50−55
medium / 1080p 55−60 55−60
GeForce GTX 750 Ti and Radeon RX 570 have the same average FPS in Cyberpunk 2077.
low / 768p 120−130 120−130
medium / 768p 100−110 110−120
ultra / 1080p 80−85 100−110
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX 570 in Dota 2 is 10% more, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
high / 1080p 24−27 45−50
ultra / 1080p 21−24 40−45
QHD / 1440p 18−20 27−30
4K / 2160p 8−9 14−16
low / 720p 50−55 80−85
medium / 1080p 27−30 45−50
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX 570 in Far Cry 5 is 65% more, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
high / 1080p 30−35 60−65
ultra / 1080p 24−27 45−50
QHD / 1440p 16−18 27−30
4K / 2160p 27−30
low / 720p 120−130 180−190
medium / 1080p 70−75 110−120
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX 570 in Fortnite is 61% more, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
high / 1080p 30−35 60−65
ultra / 1080p 24−27 45−50
QHD / 1440p 14−16 30−35
4K / 2160p 12−14 24−27
low / 720p 65−70 100−110
medium / 1080p 35−40 65−70
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX 570 in Forza Horizon 4 is 80% more, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
low / 768p 100−110 140−150
medium / 768p 90−95 120−130
high / 1080p 40−45 70−75
ultra / 1080p 16−18 30−35
QHD / 1440p 7−8 21−24
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX 570 in Grand Theft Auto V is 51% more, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
high / 1080p 12−14 24−27
ultra / 1080p 10−11 20−22
QHD / 1440p 10−11 16−18
4K / 2160p 3−4 8−9
low / 720p 40−45 65−70
medium / 1080p 18−20 30−35
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX 570 in Metro Exodus is 75% more, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
low / 768p 120−130 130−140
medium / 1080p 110−120 120−130
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX 570 in Minecraft is 8% more, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
ultra / 1080p 14−16 14−16
low / 720p 70−75 100−110
medium / 1080p 18−20 18−20
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX 570 in PLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDS is 31% more, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
high / 1080p 14−16 24−27
ultra / 1080p 10−11 16−18
QHD / 1440p 1−2 10−11
4K / 2160p 1−2 7−8
low / 720p 35−40 65−70
medium / 1080p 21−24 35−40
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX 570 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 92% more, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
low / 768p 70−75 130−140
medium / 768p 45−50 85−90
high / 1080p 24−27 45−50
ultra / 1080p 14−16 24−27
4K / 2160p 8−9 16−18
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX 570 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 87% more, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.
low / 768p 90−95 90−95
medium / 768p 60−65 60−65
ultra / 1080p 40−45 50−55
high / 768p 55−60 60−65
The average gaming FPS of Radeon RX 570 in World of Tanks is 6% more, than GeForce GTX 750 Ti.

Full Specs

  GeForce GTX 750 Ti Radeon RX 570
Architecture Maxwell Polaris
Code name GM107 Polaris 20 Ellesmere
Type Desktop Desktop
Release date 18 February 2014 18 April 2017
Pipelines 640 2048
Core clock speed 1020 MHz 1168 MHz
Boost Clock 1085 MHz 1244 MHz
Transistor count 1,870 million 5,700 million
Manufacturing process technology 28 nm 14 nm
Texture fill rate 43. 40 159.2
Floating-point performance 1,389 gflops 5,095 gflops
Length 5.7″ (14.5 cm) 241 mm
Memory bus width 128 Bit 256 Bit
Memory clock speed 5.4 GB/s 7000 MHz
Memory bandwidth 86.4 GB/s 224.0 GB/s
Shared memory
DirectX 12 (11_0) 12 (12_0)
Shader Model 5.1 6.4
OpenGL 4.4 4.6
OpenCL 1.2 2.0
Vulkan 1.1.126 +
CUDA +
Monero / XMR (CryptoNight) 0. 25 kh/s
FreeSync +
CUDA cores 640
Bus support PCI Express 3.0
Height 4.376″ (11.1 cm)
Multi monitor support 4 displays
HDMI +
HDCP +
Maximum VGA resolution 2048×1536
Audio input for HDMI Internal
3D Gaming +
3D Vision +
3D Vision Live +
Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) 183 Mh/s
Decred / DCR (Decred) 0. 51 Gh/s
Ethereum / ETH (DaggerHashimoto) 2.3 Mh/s
Zcash / ZEC (Equihash) 74.4 Sol/s
Blu Ray 3D +
 

Check Price

Check Price

Similar compares

  • GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs GeForce GTX 660
  • GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs Radeon HD 6970M Crossfire
  • Radeon RX 570 vs GeForce GTX 660
  • Radeon RX 570 vs Radeon HD 6970M Crossfire
  • GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs Quadro P3200
  • GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs Quadro P3200
  • Radeon RX 570 vs Quadro P3200
  • Radeon RX 570 vs Quadro P3200

AMD Radeon RX 570 vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti








AMD Radeon RX 570 vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

Comparison of the technical characteristics between the graphics cards, with AMD Radeon RX 570 on one side and Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti on the other side. The first is dedicated to the desktop sector, it has 2048 shading units, a maximum frequency of 1,2 GHz, its lithography is 14 nm. The second is used on the desktop segment, it includes 640 shading units, a maximum frequency of 1,1 GHz, its lithography is 28 nm. The following table also compares the boost clock, the number of shading units (if indicated), of execution units, the amount of cache memory, the maximum memory capacity, the memory bus width, the release date, the number of PCIe lanes, the values ​​obtained in various benchmarks.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.

This page contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products. For an explanation of our advertising policy, please visit this page.

Specifications:

Graphics card

AMD Radeon RX 570

Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Market (main)

Desktop

Desktop
Release date

Q2 2017

Q1 2014
Model number

215-0910052, Polaris 20 XL

GM107-400-A2
GPU name

Polaris 20

GM107
Architecture

GCN 4. 0

Maxwell
Generation

Polaris RX 500

GeForce 700
Lithography

14 nm

28 nm
Transistors

5.700.000.000

1.870.000.000
Bus interface

PCIe 3.0 x16

PCIe 3.0 x16
GPU base clock

1,17 GHz

1,02 GHz
GPU boost clock

1,24 GHz

1,09 GHz
Memory frequency

1.750 MHz

1.350 MHz
Effective memory speed

7 GB/s

5,4 GB/s
Memory size

4 GB

2 GB
Memory type

GDDR5

GDDR5
Memory bus

256 Bit

128 Bit
Memory bandwidth

224,0 GB/s

86,4 GB/s
TDP

150 W

60 W
Suggested PSU 450W ATX Power Supply 300W ATX Power Supply
Multicard technology


Outputs

1x DVI
1x HDMI
3x DisplayPort

2x DVI
1x mini-HDMI


Cores (compute units, SM, SMX)

32

5
Shading units (cuda cores)

2. 048

640
TMUs

128

40
ROPs

32

16
Cache memory

2 MB

2 MB
Pixel fillrate

39,8 GP/s

17,4 GP/s
Texture fillrate

159,2 GT/s

43,4 GT/s
Performance FP32 (float)

5,1 TFLOPS

1,4 TFLOPS
Performance FP64 (double)

318,5 GFLOPS

43,4 GFLOPS
Amazon


eBay


Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above.

Price: For technical reasons, we cannot currently display a price less than 24 hours, or a real-time price. This is why we prefer for the moment not to show a price. You should refer to the respective online stores for the latest price, as well as availability.

We can better compare what are the technical differences between the two graphics cards.

Performances :

Performance comparison between the two processors, for this we consider the results generated on benchmark software such as Geekbench 4.





FP32 Performance in GFLOPS
AMD Radeon RX 570

5.095
Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

1.389

The difference is 267%.

Note: Commissions may be earned from the links above. These scores are only an
average of the performances got with these graphics cards, you may get different results.

Single precision floating point format, also known as FP32, is a computer number format that typically occupies 32 bits in PC memory. This represents a wide dynamic range of numeric values that employs a floating point.

See also:

AMD Radeon RX 570 MobileAMD Radeon RX 5700AMD Radeon RX 5700 XTAMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th AnniversaryAMD Radeon RX 5700MAMD Radeon RX 570X

Equivalence:

AMD Radeon RX 570 Nvidia equivalentNvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti AMD equivalent

Disclaimer:

When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

This page includes affiliate links for which the administrator of GadgetVersus may earn a commission at no extra cost to you should you make a purchase. These links are indicated using the hashtag #ad.

Information:

We do not assume any responsibility for the data displayed on our website. Please use at your own risk. Some or all of this data may be out of date or incomplete, please refer to the technical page on the respective manufacturer’s website to find the latest up-to-date information regarding the specifics of these products.

Asus, EVGA, Gigabyte and MSI GTX 750 Ti Compared


ThePCEnthusiast is supported by its readers. Some posts may contain affiliate links. If you purchase products via our link(s),
we may earn an affiliate commission. See our site disclosure here.


Home » PC Components » Graphics Card » Asus, EVGA, Gigabyte and MSI GTX 750 Ti Compared – See Specs, Prices and Where to Buy

by Peter Paul

Now that NVIDIA has officially announced the GeForce GTX 750 Ti graphics card, featuring the next generation Maxwell architecture, other graphics card manufacturers have also unleashed their own GTX 750 Ti, featuring different designs, coolers, clock speeds and pricing. Today, let’s take a look at the different GTX 750 Ti manufactured by Asus, EVGA, Gigabyte and MSI. This article hopes to answer some questions like, which graphics card manufacturer has the better GTX 750 Ti, which has the best price per performance ratio, and which GTX 750 Ti should you get. Check out their respective specifications and prices below. I have also attached a video below which will help answer those questions.

Specifications Comparison

Specifications Asus GTX 750 Ti OC EVGA GTX 750 Ti FTW EVGA GTX 750 Ti SC EVGA GTX 750 Ti Gigabyte GTX 750 Ti OC MSI N750 Ti TF MSI N750 Ti OC
Graphics Engine NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Bus Standard PCI Express 3. 0 PCI Express 3.0 PCI Express 3.0 PCI Express 3.0 PCI Express 3.0 PCI Express 3.0 PCI Express 3.0
Video Memory 2GB GDDR5 2GB GDDR5 2GB GDDR5 2GB GDDR5 2GB GDDR5 2GB GDDR5 2GB GDDR5
GPU Base Clock 1072 MHz 1189MHz 1176 MHz 1020 MHz 1033 MHz 1020MHz 1059MHz
GPU Boost Clock 1150 MHz 1268MHz 1255 MHz 1085 MHz 1111MHz 1163 MHz 1137 MHz
CUDA Cores 640 640 640 640 640 640 640
Memory Clock 5400 MHz (effective) 5400 MHz (effective) 5400 MHz (effective) 5400 MHz (effective) 5400 MHz (effective) 5400 MHz (effective) 5400 MHz (effective)
Memory Interface 128-bit 128-bit 128-bit 128-bit 128-bit 128-bit 128-bit
Interface D-Sub, 2x DVI-D, HDMI DVI-I, HDMI, Display Port DVI-I, HDMI, Display Port DVI-I, HDMI, Display Port DVI-I, DVI-D, 2x HDMI DVI-D, D-Sub, HDMI DVI-D, D-Sub, HDMI
Dimensions 8. 58 » x 4.527 » x 1.53 » Inch 9.50″ x 4.38″ Inch 204mm x 144mm x 42mm 250mm x 128mm x 37mm 212mm x 120mm x 34mm

As you can see from the table above, the EVGA GTX 750 Ti FTW and SC versions have the highest base clock and boost clock speeds. EVGA’s GTX 750 Ti FTW with ACX cooler is also the most expensive GTX 750 Ti, same with MSI’s with Twin Frozer cooler. The EVGA GTX 750 Ti SC is followed by the MSI N750 TI Twin Frozr with a boost speed of 1163MHz, then by Asus’ and Gigabyte’s.

In real world gaming performance, the superclocked or overclocked variant will produce a slightly better performance from the non OC variant, but not a really significant improvement. Your computer specifications also contribute to the overall performance. The better your PC’s specs are, the higher the possibility that you will produce higher frame rates.

The Asus GTX 750 TI OC has an optional 6pin power connector which will consume more power for stability just in case you overclock the graphics card further. This is same with Gigabyte’s GV-N75TOC-2GI and the FTW version from EVGA. This means that these cards have the possibility to consume more power compared to those that doesn’t have a 6-pin power connector. Now let’s check out their current respective prices below.

Price and Availability

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti has a suggested retail price of $149 USD. The EVGA GTX 750 Ti non OC variant has a price closest to the reference price. But the GTX 750 Ti from Asus, MSI as well as EVGA’s FTW version seemed to be the more popular choice, despite priced slightly higher.

Asus, EVGA, Gigabyte and MSI GTX 750 Ti Video Comparison


Advertisements

0026 vs 1020MHz

  • 3.69 TFLOPS above FLOPS?
    5 TFLOPS vs 1.31 TFLOPS
  • 23.5 GPixel/s higher pixel rate?
    39. 8 GPixel/s vs 16.3 GPixel/s
  • 400MHz faster memory speed?
    1750MHz vs 1350MHz
  • 1600MHz higher effective clock speed?
    7000MHz vs 5400MHz
  • 2x more VRAM?
    4GB vs 2GB
  • 118.4 GTexels/s higher number of textured pixels? Is
    159.2 GTexels/s vs 40.8 GTexels/s
  • 0.8 a newer version of DirectX?
    12 vs 11.2
  • Why is Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti better than AMD Radeon RX 570?

    • 60W below TDP?
      60W vs 120W
    • 12°C lower GPU temperature at boot?
      62°C vs 74°C
    • Supports 3D?
    • Is GPU idle temperature 6°C lower?
      25°C vs 31°C
    • 10W lower standby power consumption?
      73W vs 83W
    • 1 more DVI outputs?
      2 vs 1
    • 96mm narrower?
      145mm vs 241mm

    Which comparisons are the most popular?

    AMD Radeon RX 570

    vs

    Gigabyte GeForce GTX 1650 Gaming OC

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    vs

    AMD Radeon RX 550

    AMD Radeon RX 570

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 1060

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050

    AMD Radeon RX 570

    vs

    Gigabyte Radeon RX 6500 XT Gaming OC

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    vs

    MSI Radeon RX 580

    AMD Radeon RX 570

    vs

    AMD Radeon RX 580

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce GT 1030 DDR4

    AMD Radeon RX 570

    vs

    MSI GeForce GTX 1050 Ti Gaming

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    vs

    AMD Radeon Vega 8

    AMD Radeon RX 570

    VS

    AMD Radeon RX 6400

    NVIDIA GEFORCE GTX 750 TI

    VS

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 16504

    AMD RADEON RX 570

    VS 9000 NVIDI 9000 NVIDIA NVIDI0003

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    vs

    AMD Radeon RX 6400

    AMD Radeon RX 570

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 Laptop

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 960

    AMD Radeon RX 570

    vs

    Nvidia Geforce GTX 1660 Super

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    vs

    Nvidia GeForce GTX 750

    AMD Radeon RX 9003 9003 vs30003

    10. 0 /10

    2 reviews of users

    Functions

    Price and quality ratio

    /10

    2 VOTES

    9000 /10

    2 Votes

    8.5 /10

    2 Votes

    performance

    8.5 /10

    2 VOTES

    7.5 /10

    003

    Fan noise

    7.5 /10

    2 Votes

    5.5 /10

    2 Votes

    9000 votes

    Performance

    1.GPU Clock Speed ​​

    1168MHz

    1020MHz

    The Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) has a higher clock speed.

    2.Turbo GPU

    1244MHz

    1085MHz

    When the GPU is running below its limits, it can jump to a higher clock speed to increase performance.

    3.pixel rate

    39.8 GPixel/s

    16.3 GPixel/s

    The number of pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.

    4. flops

    5 TFLOPS

    1.31 TFLOPS

    FLOPS is a measure of GPU processing power.

    5.texture size

    159.2 GTexels/s

    40.8 GTexels/s

    Number of textured pixels that can be displayed on the screen every second.

    6.GPU memory speed

    1750MHz

    1350MHz

    Memory speed is one aspect that determines memory bandwidth.

    7.shading patterns

    Shading units (or stream processors) are small processors in a video card that are responsible for processing various aspects of an image.

    8.textured units (TMUs)

    TMUs accept textured units and bind them to the geometric layout of the 3D scene. More TMUs generally means texture information is processed faster.

    9 ROPs

    ROPs are responsible for some of the final steps of the rendering process, such as writing the final pixel data to memory and for performing other tasks such as anti-aliasing to improve the appearance of graphics.

    Memory

    1.memory effective speed

    7000MHz

    5400MHz

    The effective memory clock frequency is calculated from the size and data transfer rate of the memory. A higher clock speed can give better performance in games and other applications.

    2.max memory bandwidth

    224GB/s

    86.4GB/s

    This is the maximum rate at which data can be read from or stored in memory.

    3.VRAM

    VRAM (video RAM) is the dedicated memory of the graphics card. More VRAM usually allows you to run games at higher settings, especially for things like texture resolution.

    4.memory bus width

    256bit

    128bit

    Wider memory bus means it can carry more data per cycle. This is an important factor in memory performance, and therefore the overall performance of the graphics card.

    5. versions of GDDR memory

    Later versions of GDDR memory offer improvements such as higher data transfer rates, which improve performance.

    6. Supports memory debug code

    ✖AMD Radeon RX 570

    ✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    Memory debug code can detect and fix data corruption. It is used when necessary to avoid distortion, such as in scientific computing or when starting a server.

    Functions

    1.DirectX version

    DirectX is used in games with a new version that supports better graphics.

    2nd version of OpenGL

    The newer version of OpenGL, the better graphics quality in games.

    OpenCL version 3.

    Some applications use OpenCL to use the power of the graphics processing unit (GPU) for non-graphical computing. Newer versions are more functional and better quality.

    4. Supports multi-monitor technology

    ✔AMD Radeon RX 570

    ✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    The video card has the ability to connect multiple screens. This allows you to set up multiple monitors at the same time to create a more immersive gaming experience, such as a wider field of view.

    5.GPU Temperature at Boot

    Lower boot temperature means that the card generates less heat and the cooling system works better.

    6.supports ray tracing

    ✖AMD Radeon RX 570

    ✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    Ray tracing is an advanced light rendering technique that provides more realistic lighting, shadows and reflections in games.

    7. Supports 3D

    ✖AMD Radeon RX 570

    ✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    Allows you to view in 3D (if you have a 3D screen and glasses).

    8.supports DLSS

    ✖AMD Radeon RX 570

    ✖Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    DLSS (Deep Learning Super Sampling) is an AI based scaling technology. This allows the graphics card to render games at lower resolutions and upscale them to higher resolutions with near-native visual quality and improved performance. DLSS is only available in some games.

    9. PassMark result (G3D)

    This test measures the graphics performance of a graphics card. Source: Pass Mark.

    Ports

    1.has HDMI output

    ✔AMD Radeon RX 570

    ✔Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    Devices with HDMI or mini HDMI ports can stream HD video and audio to an attached display.

    2.HDMI connectors

    More HDMI connectors allow you to connect multiple devices at the same time, such as game consoles and TVs.

    3rd HDMI version

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (AMD Radeon RX 570)

    Unknown. Help us offer a price. (Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti)

    Newer versions of HDMI support higher bandwidth, resulting in higher resolutions and frame rates.

    4. DisplayPort outputs

    Allows connection to a display using DisplayPort.

    5.DVI outputs

    Allows connection to a display using DVI.

    Mini DisplayPort 6.outs

    Allows connection to a display using Mini DisplayPort.

    Price comparison

    Cancel

    Which graphic cards are better?

    Comparison of Radeon RX 570 and GeForce GTX 750 Ti. Which video card is better?

    Home / Video Card Comparison / Which is better Radeon RX 570 or GeForce GTX 750 Ti?

    Radeon RX 570

    GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    April, 2017 | 1.2GHz | 4GB GDDR5

    February, 2014 | 1GHz | 2GB GDDR5

    Edelmark rating
    7.1

    Edelmark rating
    6.8

    General comparison

    Game performance

    Tested with: Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite, Crysis 2, Crysis 3, Dirt3, FarCry 3, Hitman: Absolution, Metro: Last Light, Thief, Alien: Isolation , Anno 2070, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Diablo III, Dirt Rally, Dragon Age: Inquisition, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, FIFA 15, FIFA 16, GRID Autosport, Grand Theft Auto V, Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raider, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt.

    Radeon RX 570 n/a
    GeForce GTX 750 Ti 6.1 out of 10
    GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 6.9 out of 10

    Graphics

    Tested with: T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor, Fire Strike Factor.

    Radeon RX 570 6.4 out of 10
    GeForce GTX 750 Ti 7.3 out of 10
    GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 6.3 out of 10

    Computing power

    Graphics card tests performed on: Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation, Particle Simulation, Video Composition, Bitcoin Mining.

    Radeon RX 570 7.3 out of 10
    GeForce GTX 750 Ti 5.7 out of 10
    GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 6.7 out of 10

    Output per W

    Video card tests performed on: Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite, Crysis 2, Crysis 3, Dirt3, FarCry 3, Hitman: Absolution, Metro: Last Light, Thief, Alien: Isolation, Anno 2070, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Diablo III, Dirt Rally, Dragon Age: Inquisition, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, FIFA 15, FIFA 16, GRID Autosport, Grand Theft Auto V, Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raider, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, T-Rex , Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor, Fire Strike Factor, Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation, Particle Simulation, Video Composition, Bitcoin Mining, TDP.

    Radeon RX 570 7.6 out of 10
    GeForce GTX 750 Ti 7.7 out of 10
    GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 7.8 out of 10

    Noise and power

    Tests used: TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption, Idle Noise Level, Load Noise Level.

    Radeon RX 570 9.1 out of 10
    GeForce GTX 750 Ti 9.6 out of 10
    GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 9.5 out of 10

    Overall graphics card rating

    Radeon RX 570 7.1 out of 10
    GeForce GTX 750 Ti 6.8 out of 10
    GeForce GTX 1050 Ti 7.0 out of 10

    Benefits

    Why is the Radeon RX 570 better?

    Significantly better floating point performance 5.095 GFLOPS vs 1,305. 6 GFLOPS Approximately 4x better floating point performance
    Significantly higher memory bandwidth 224 GB/s vs 86.4 GB/s More than 2.5x memory bandwidth
    Overclocked 1.168 MHz vs 1.020 MHz Approximately 15% higher clock speed
    Significantly faster texture processing speed 159.2 GTexel/s vs 40.8 GTexel/s Approximately 4x faster texture rendering speed
    Higher effective memory clock speed 7.000 MHz vs 5.400 MHz Approximately 30% higher effective memory clock speed
    More memory vs 2.048MB 2x more memory
    Faster pixel fill rate 39.81GPixel/s vs 16.32 GPixel/s Approximately 2. 5x faster pixel fill rate
    Significantly more shader units 2.048 vs 640 1408 more shader units
    Significantly more texture units 128 vs 40 88 more texture units
    Significantly better sky diver test 387.27 vs 255.03 More than 50% better sky diver test
    Better face recognition quality score 110.82 mPixels/s vs 44.94 mPixels/s Approximately 2.5x better face recognition quality score
    More raster operation blocks 32 vs 16 Twice as many raster operation blocks
    Overclocked turbo 1.244 MHz vs 1.085 MHz Approximately 15% higher turbo clock speed
    Higher memory clock speed 1. 750 MHz vs 1.350 MHz Approximately 30% higher memory clock speed
    Slightly wider memory bus 256bit vs 128bit 2x wider memory bus

    Why is the GeForce GTX 750 Ti better?

    Lower power consumption 60W vs 120W 2x lower power consumption

    Comparative benchmarks (benchmarks)

    Bitcoin mining

    Radeon RX 570 634.9 mHash/s
    GeForce GTX 750 Ti 173.22 mHash/s

    Face Recognition

    Radeon RX 570 110.82 mPixels/s
    GeForce GTX 750 Ti 44.94 mPixels/s

    Fire Strike test

    Radeon RX 570 70.44
    GeForce GTX 750 Ti 33.8

    Sky Diver Test

    Radeon RX 570 387. 27
    GeForce GTX 750 Ti 255.03

    Cloud Gate test

    Radeon RX 570 19.49
    GeForce GTX 750 Ti 17.81


    Tags:compare, GeForce GTX 750 Ti, Radeon RX 570

    Compare AMD Radeon RX 570 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon RX 570 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti video cards by all known characteristics in the categories: General information, Specifications, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions, requirements, API support, Memory, Technology support.
    Analysis of video card performance by benchmarks: PassMark — G3D Mark, PassMark — G2D Mark, Geekbench — OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T -Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score.

    AMD Radeon RX 570

    versus

    NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    Benefits

    Reasons to choose AMD Radeon RX 570

    • Newer graphics card, release date difference 3 year(s) 2 month(s) on Boost 9012st

      % more: 1206-1244 MHz vs 1085 MHz

    • 3668.9x more texture speed: 159.23 GTexel/s vs 43.4 GTexel / s
    • 3.2x more shader processors: 2048 vs 640
    • A newer technological process for the production of a video card allows it to be more powerful, but with lower power consumption: 14 nm vs 28 nm
    • The maximum memory size is 4 times larger: 8 GB vs 2 GB
    • The memory frequency is 1400 times ( a) more: 7000 MHz vs 5. 4 GB/s
    • Performance in PassMark — G3D Mark about 78% more: 6967 vs 3911
    • Performance in PassMark — G2D Mark about 25% more: 626 vs 501
    • 3.2x better performance in Geekbench — OpenCL benchmark: 40810 vs 12753
    • 2.5x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) benchmark: 105.688 vs 42.463
    • benchmark performance CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) about 69% more: 1083.926 vs 642.715
    • CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 2.8 times more performance: 8.251 vs 2.933
    • 3x more performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) benchmark: 79.029 vs 26.532
    • 3.9x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) benchmark : 520.089 vs 133.458
    • About 89% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) benchmark: 9172 vs 4843
    • About 1% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) benchmark vs 3246
    • About 89% more performance in GFXBench 4. 0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) benchmark: 9172 vs 4843
    • About 1% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) benchmark: 3346 vs 3329
    • 3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score 3 times greater: 3841 vs 1278
    Release date 18 April 2017 vs 18 February 2014
    Boost core clock 1206-1244 MHz vs 1085 MHz
    Texturing Speed ​​ 159.23 GTexel/s vs 43.4 GTexel/s
    Number of shaders 2048 vs 640
    Process 14 nm vs 28 nm
    Maximum memory size 8 GB vs 2 GB
    Memory frequency 7000 MHz vs 5. 4 GB/s
    PassMark — G3D Mark 6967 vs 3911
    PassMark — G2D Mark 626 vs 501
    Geekbench — OpenCL 40810 vs 12753
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 105.688 vs 42.463
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 1083.926 vs 642.715
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 8.251 vs 2.933
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) 79.029 vs 26. 532
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 520.089 vs 133.458
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) 9172 vs 4843
    GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) 3346 vs 3329
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) 9172 vs 4843
    GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) 3346 vs 3329
    3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score 3841 vs 1278

    Reasons to choose NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    • About 10% more core clock: 1020 MHz vs 926-1168 MHz
    • 272. 4 times greater floating point performance: 1,389 gflops vs 5.1 TFLOPs
    • 2.5 times less power consumption: 60 Watt vs 150 Watt
    • Performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) benchmark: approximately 2% greater 3683 vs 3624
    • About 2% more performance in GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps): 3683 vs 3624
    Core Clock 1020 MHz vs 926-1168MHz
    Floating point performance 1.389 gflops vs 5.1 TFLOPs
    Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt vs 150 Watt
    GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Frames) 3683 vs 3624
    GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) 3683 vs 3624

    Benchmark comparison

    GPU 1: AMD Radeon RX 570
    GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti

    PassMark — G3D Mark
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    PassMark — G2D Mark
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    Geekbench — OpenCL
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    105.688
    42.463
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    1083.926
    642.715
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    79.029
    26.532
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    520.089
    133.458
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    GFXBench 4. 0 — T-Rex (Fps)
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score
    GPU 1
    GPU 2
    Name AMD Radeon RX 570 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti
    PassMark — G3D Mark 6967 3911
    PassMark — G2D Mark 626 501
    Geekbench — OpenCL 40810 12753
    CompuBench 1. 5 Desktop — Face Detection (mPixels/s) 105.688 42.463
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) 1083.926 642.715
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — T-Rex (Frames/s) 8.251 2.933
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Video Composition (Frames/s) 79.029 26.532
    CompuBench 1.5 Desktop — Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) 520.089 133.458
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) 9172 4843
    GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan (Frames) 3624 3683
    GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Frames) 3346 3329
    GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) 9172 4843
    GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan (Fps) 3624 3683
    GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex (Fps) 3346 3329
    3DMark Fire Strike — Graphics Score 3841 1278

    Feature comparison

    AMD Radeon RX 570 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti
    Architecture GCN 4. 0 Maxwell
    Codename Polaris 20 GM107
    Design Radeon RX 500 Series
    Generation GCN 4th Gen
    Issue date April 18, 2017 18 February 2014
    Price at first issue date $169 $149
    Place in the rating 263 593
    Price now $149. 99 $299.01
    Type Desktop, Laptop Desktop
    Price/performance ratio (0-100) 59.00 15.02
    Boost core clock 1206-1244 MHz 1085MHz
    Core clock 926-1168 MHz 1020 MHz
    Floating point performance 5.1 TFLOPs 1.389 gflops
    Process 14nm 28nm
    Number of shaders 2048 640
    Pixel fill rate 39. 81GP/s
    Render output units 32
    Stream Processors 2048
    Texturing Speed ​​ 159.23 GTexel/s 43.4 GTexel/s
    Texture Units 128
    Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 60 Watt
    Number of transistors 5,700 million 1,870 million
    Number of CUDA conveyors 640
    Video connectors 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI, One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini. ..
    DisplayPort 9 support0558

    Support Dual-link DVI
    HDMI
    VGA
    Audio input for HDMI Internal
    G-SYNC support
    HDCP
    Maximum resolution VGA 2048×1536
    Multi-monitor support
    CrossFire without bridge
    Interface PCIe 3. 0 x16 PCIe 3.0 x16
    Length 241 mm 5.7″ (14.5cm)
    Recommended power supply 450 Watt
    Additional power connectors 1x 6-pin None
    Tire PCI Express 3.0
    Height 4.376″ (11.1 cm)
    DirectX 12.0 (12_0) 12.0 (11_0)
    OpenCL 2. 0
    OpenGL 4.6 4.4
    Vulcan
    Maximum memory size 8GB 2GB
    Memory bandwidth 224 GB/s 86.4 GB/s
    Memory bus width 256bit 128 Bit
    Memory frequency 7000 MHz 5.4 GB/s
    Memory type GDDR5 GDDR5
    Shared memory 0
    4K h364 Decode
    4K h364 Encode
    AMD Eyefinity
    AMD Radeon™ Chill
    AMD Radeon™ ReLive
    CrossFire
    FreeSync
    h365/HEVC Decode
    h365/HEVC Encode
    HDMI 4K Support
    PowerTune
    Unified Video Decoder (UVD)
    Virtual Super Resolution (VSR)
    3D Gaming
    3D Vision
    3D Vision Live
    Adaptive VSync
    Blu Ray 3D
    CUDA
    FXAA
    GeForce Experience
    GPU Boost
    TXAA

    Radeon Vega 11 vs GeForce GT 1030, GTX 750 Ti and Radeon RX 460 4GB GECID.

    com. Page 1

    ::>Video cards
    >2018
    > Comparison: Radeon Vega 11 vs GeForce GT 1030, GTX 750 Ti and Radeon RX 460 4GB

    04-14-2018

    Page 1
    Page 2
    One page

    We recently reviewed the gaming capabilities of the AMD Ryzen 3 2200G APU’s built-in Radeon Vega 8 graphics core against budget discrete graphics cards, and now it’s the Radeon Vega 11’s turn. from inexpensive video cards.

    In case you forgot, we remind you that AMD Ryzen 5 2400G has 4 processor cores with SMT support, which operate at frequencies of 3.6 — 3.9GHz. The built-in RAM controller is guaranteed to run DDR4-2933 modules in dual-channel mode, and only 8 PCIe lanes are available for connecting an external video card. TDP is 65W, and the estimated price tag has already dropped to $174.

    The integrated Radeon Vega 11 core consists of 704 compute units, 44 texture units, and 16 raster units. Its maximum frequency is 1250 MHz. There is support for DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, Open CL 2.0 and Vulkan 1.0 and probably 1.1.

    Let’s move on to the test bench. Finally, we can say thank you to AMD, because we received an official press kit for testing, which includes not only the APU itself, but also the bundled Wraith Stealth cooler, MSI B350I PRO AC motherboard and 16 GB G.SKILL RAM kit Flare X. That is, at the same time we will check the efficiency of the standard cooling system.

    The motherboard itself is sure to please those who like to assemble a compact universal system in Mini-ITX format. Two DIMM slots mean that the RAM configuration is better thought out in advance. But there should be no problems with the disk subsystem, because there are four SATA ports and one Turbo M.2 on the back. There is a PCI Express x16 slot for an expansion card. A nice bonus is the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth wireless interface module.

    It came with a special engineering BIOS version. But since we are making tests closer to reality, we immediately updated the firmware to the latest stable version. At first it was 13, and a day later there was 14, which brought more different settings to the menu. Unfortunately, we did not check the stability of the APU on the engineering BIOS, but on the regular versions we observed all the previously noted troubles with unstable video core frequencies and friezes in games.

    Therefore, to improve stability, we fixed the speed at 1240 MHz. But we could not set the SoC Voltage at 1.2 V: when trying, the temperature of the cores exceeded 100 ° C. Therefore, we left the value of 1.1 V suggested by the system, but in heavy games the temperature still reached 100 ° C.

    In turn, the G.SKILL Flare X RAM kit was created specifically for the Socket AM4 platform and is equipped with a low-profile heatsink for better cooling of the chips. The total height of the modules is 40 mm, so they can be used in tandem with overall coolers. The nominal frequency reaches 3200 MHz at a voltage of 1.35 V. Activation is carried out by the XMP profile, which greatly simplifies overclocking. We used the frequency 2933 MHz as nominal for this APU.

    The rest of the stand configuration has not changed:

    • AMD Ryzen 5 2400G
    • MSI B350I PRO AC
    • 2x 8GB DDR4-2933 G.SKILL Flare X
    • GOODRAM Iridium PRO 240GB | 960GB
    • Seagate IronWolf 2TB
    • Seasonic PRIME 850W Titanium
    • Thermaltake Core P5 TGE
    • AOC U2879VF

    Let’s move on to the opponents. The first represents the category of entry-level gaming graphics cards of past generations. This is a GeForce GTX 750 Ti from ZOTAC with minimal GPU factory overclocking. The card uses all available 8 PCIe lanes and offers a 128-bit memory bus, thus outperforming Vega 11 in terms of bandwidth. But the integrated video core boasts a faster pixel and texture fill rate, as well as support for more up-to-date software interfaces. Whether this will help him in real gaming tests, you will soon find out.

    The second opponent represents the actual budget segment. We are talking about the GeForce GT 1030 version from ASUS, which turned out to be 17-19% faster than Vega 8. It features a 2% factory overclocking of the GPU. 2 GB of GDDR5 memory runs at a standard effective frequency of 6 GHz. The weaknesses of all representatives of the GeForce GT 1030 series are the 64-bit memory bus and the use of only 4 PCIe 3.0 lanes for communication with the processor. Therefore, 8 APU lines will be enough with a margin. As a result, the pixel fill rate of the GeForce GT 1030 and Vega 11 is almost the same, and the filling of textures is 80% faster in the iGPU.

    The third competitor is selected from current entry-level gaming graphics cards. This category includes the GeForce GTX 1050, Radeon RX 560 and Radeon RX 560D. The latter is a rebranded Radeon RX 460. The Radeon RX 460 itself has almost disappeared from sale, but we managed to find the ASUS ROG Strix RX 460 model. It is based on the Baffin PRO GPU, which has 896 stream processors, 56 texture units and 16 raster units in its structure. .

    This video card is interesting with a slight factory overclocking of the GPU and the presence of 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and an effective speed of 7 GHz. It also uses only 8 PCIe lanes, so it doesn’t suffer from a limited number of them in the APU. Its texture fill rate is higher, but DirectX 12 extensions are supported to a lesser extent.

    So we come to the actual testing. The games were selected based on the results of a survey among viewers of the YouTube channel, and the settings were selected in such a way as to obtain a playable FPS on a system with Vega 11. at a low graphics preset. The impossibility of synchronization of gameplays does not allow us to talk about the repeatability of the results, but in general, Vega 11 was able to provide a playable 30-40 FPS with a not too torn frame time graph. The temperature reached 100°C, but the frequencies remained stable. The rest of the opponents are at least 12% ahead, and the GeForce GT 1030 loses slightly only in terms of the minimum speed.

    In The Third Witcher at HD resolution and medium profiles, the APU temperature is at the level of 70-80°C, so we were no longer worried about the stability of the work, but still the performance is high. A run around the city is given on average at 38 frames / s with drawdowns up to 35. For some this will be enough, for the rest we recommend installing a discrete graphics card. Even with the GeForce GT 1030 we get 3-8% more, and with the GeForce GTX 750 Ti the bonus exceeds 22%.

    In GTA V we chose almost the minimum settings in Full HD and got decent results — an average of 57 FPS with drawdowns up to 40. However, the frame time graph was quite torn, especially in the background opponents. Their video sequence speed was also at least 38% higher.