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 |
2x DVI |
||||||
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
5 TFLOPS vs 1.31 TFLOPS
39. 8 GPixel/s vs 16.3 GPixel/s
1750MHz vs 1350MHz
7000MHz vs 5400MHz
4GB vs 2GB
159.2 GTexels/s vs 40.8 GTexels/s
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 |
Edelmark rating |
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 |
|
|||||
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 |
|
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.