Logo   Banner   TopRight
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti Maxwell GPU Review
Date: Feb 18, 2014
Author: Marco Chiappetta
Introduction and Specifications

The mid-range graphics card market has seen a lot of action as of late, with an infusion of new products and the discontinuation of popular previous-gen products. Last week it was AMD’s turn to announce a new card—the $150 Radeon R7 265—and with its arrival also came a price cut on the Radeon R7 260X, which can now be had for as low as $129, though the MSRP has been reduced to $119.

Today is NVIDIA’s turn to introduce a new mid-range graphics card. But unlike AMD’s re-brand and soft-launch, NVIDIA is at the ready with a brand-new GPU architecture and cards should be hitting store shelves immediately. The new GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GeForce GTX 750 are the first graphics cards in NVIDIA’s line-up to feature the company’s next-gen Maxwell GPU architecture, which is an evolution of Kepler that’s designed to deliver higher performance and power efficiency.

Take a look at the main features and specifications for NVIDIA’s new cards below and then we’ll dive in a little deeper, inspect a couple of retail-ready models, and dig into their performance and power characteristics...

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti Reference Card

NVIDIA "Maxwell" GeForce GTX 750 and GTX 750 Ti 
Specifications & Features

GeForce GTX 750  GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Graphics Processing Clusters 1  1
Streaming Multiprocessors 4  5
CUDA Cores (single precision) 512  640
Texture Units 32  40
ROP Units 16  16
Base Clock 1020 MHz  1020 MHz
Boost Clock 1085 MHz  1085 MHz
Memory Clock (Data rate) 5000 MHz  5400 MHz
L2 Cache Size 2048 KB  2048 KB
Total Video Memory 1024 MB GDDR5  2048 MB GDDR5
Memory Interface 128-Bit  128-Bit
Total Memory Bandwidth 80 GB/s  86.4 GB/s
Texture Filtering Rate (Bilinear) 32.6 GigaTexels/sec  40.8 GigaTexels/sec
Fabrication Process 28 nm  28nm
Transistor Count 1.87 Billion  1.87 Billion

2 x Dual-Link DVI
1 x Mini HDMI

2 x Dual-Link DVI
1 x Mini HDMI

Form Factor Dual Slot  Dual Slot
Power Connectors None  None
Recommended Power Supply 300 Watts  300 Watts
Thermal Design Power (TDP) 55 Watts  60 Watts
Thermal Threshold 95°C  95°C
Price  $119 MSRP
$149 MSRP

We’ll discuss NVIDIA’s reference specifications more deeply on the next page, but want to point out a couple of things in the table above. First, take a look at those TDP ratings. The GeForce GTX 750 Ti is rated for only 60w, while its little brother comes in at 55w. That means reference cards (and likely some factory overclocked models) do not require any supplemental power. The cards get all the juice they need right from the graphics slot alone, which opens up the possibility to upgrade many white-box systems that may not ship with beefy enough power supplies to handle more power-hungry discrete GPUs. Also note that the GPU (codenamed GM107) is manufactured using TSMC’s 28nm process node. Previous-gen Kepler-based cards were also produced at 28nm, so while Maxwell is a new architecture, these new cards do not leverage a new manufacturing process. It’s likely that future Maxwell-based GPUs will use a more advanced manufacturing process, however.

NVIDIA was able to keep power so low on the GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GTX 750 by focusing on power efficiency throughout the design of Maxwell. NVIDIA took what they learned with Kepler and its Tegra SoCs and put much of that knowledge into Maxwell. Maxwell is designed to boost efficiency through better GPU utilization, and ultimately improve performance per watt and per die area.

GM107 "Maxwell" GPU Block Diagram

Maxwell’s Streaming Multiprocessors, or SM, are somewhat different than Kepler’s. With Maxwell, NVIDIA has made improvements to the control logic partitions for better workload balancing, and it also has finer-grained clock-gating and better compiler-based scheduling. Maxwell can also issue more instructions per clock cycle, all of which allow the Maxwell SM (also called an SMM in some NVIDIA docs) to exceed Kepler’s SMX in terms of efficiency. NVIDIA is claiming that Maxwell’s new SM architecture can deliver 35% more performance per CUDA Core on shader-limited workloads than Kepler, with up to double the performance per watt, despite using the same 28nm manufacturing process.

Due to the architectural and SM design differences, NVIDIA was able to increase the number of SMs in GM107 to 5, versus 2 in GK107, and also increase the L2 cache size to 2MB versus 256K, with only a 25% increase in die area. Each SM in the GM107 includes a Polymorph Engine and Texture Units, while each GPC includes a Raster Engine. And the ROPs are aligned with L2 cache slices and Memory Controller partitions.

The GM107 GPU contains one GPC, five Maxwell Streaming Multiprocessors (SMM), and two 64-bit memory controller partitions (128-bit total). Each SM is now partitioned into four separate processing blocks, each with its own instruction buffer, scheduler and 32 CUDA cores. With Kepler, the control logic had to route and schedule traffic to 192 CUDA cores. This partitioning simplifies the design and scheduling logic, saving area and power, and reduces computation latency. The compute L1 cache function has now also been combined with the texture cache function, and shared memory is a separate unit shared across all four blocks.

Overall, with this new design, each “SM” is significantly smaller while delivering about 90% of the performance of a Kepler SM. The smaller area per SM, however, allows NVIDIA to implement more SMs per GPU. Comparing GK107 versus GM107, for example, GM107 has five SMs versus two SMs, along with 25% more peak texture performance and 1.7 times more CUDA cores.

Maxwell features an improved NVENC block that provides faster encode (6-8X real-time for H.264 vs. 4x real-time for Kepler) and 8-10X faster decode as well, and thanks to a new local decoder cache, Maxwell has higher memory efficiency per stream for video decoding, which also results in lower power for video decode operations. The updates to the NVENC block make the GM107 a perfect companion to NVIDIA's ShadowPlay feature. We should also point out that Maxwell and the GM107 works for streaming to Shield as well. And it supports G-SYNC too, provided the card is outfitted with the requisite DP output.  The GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GTX 750, however, like the GeForce GTX 650 Ti, do not support SLI.

GeForce GTX 750 and 750 Ti Cards

In addition to an NVIDIA reference GeForce GTX 750 Ti, we got our hands on a trio of cards from EVGA and Zotac for the purposes of this review, including a GeForce GTX 750 “non-Ti”.

Before we take a look at the retail-ready cards though, we should discuss NVIDIA’s reference specifications a bit. NVIDIA calls for a base GPU clock of 1020MHz and boost clock of 1085MHz on both the GTX 750 Ti and GTX 750. The memory clock on the Ti is set for 5400Gbps, while the standard GTX 750 comes in at 5000Gbps.

The GeForce GTX 750 Ti features the GM107’s full complement of 640 CUDA cores (1 GPC, 5 SMs), with 40 texture units and 16 ROPs. The GPU is linked to 2GB of GDDR5 memory via a 128-bit interface. With those specification, the GeForce GTX 750 Ti offers up 40.8 Gigatexel’s of fillrate and 86.4 GB/s of peak memory bandwidth. The GeForce GTX 750 has one SM disabled, for a total of 512 CUDA cores, 32 texture units, and 16 ROPs. It offers up 32.6 Gigatexel/s of fillrate and 80 GB/s of peak memory bandwidth.

The Zotac cards featured below are clocked at NVIDIA’s reference specifications. The EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti ACX FTW, however, is a factory overclocked model with a number of other customizations as well.

The EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti FTW

As you can see, the EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti ACX FTW features a much larger cooler than NVIDIA’s reference card. More specifically, it’s an iteration of EVGA’s ACX cooler, and like the larger model used on more powerful cards like the EVGA GeForce GTX 770 ACX, it features dual-fans and a large fin-stack, for increased cooling performance. The EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti ACX FTW also features a supplemental power connector, which can supply additional power to aid overclocking, and unlike reference cards, the outputs on EVGA’s offering include a DisplayPort, so the card is G-SYNC ready. EVGA’s PCB is slightly longer too, though the cooler extends outward even further.

This Ain't Your Average GeForce GTX 750 Ti...

EVGA has outfitted the GeForce GTX 750 Ti ACX FTW with the same 2GB of GDDR5 memory clocked at 5400 MHz (5400 GBps effective data rate) as reference models, but the card’s GPU is bumped up quite a bit. EVGA has set the base clock at 1189 MHz with a boost clock of 1268 MHz, however, which is significantly higher than NVIDIA’s reference spec. All told, EVGA has essentially upgraded everything about the GTX 750 Ti. More power, more cooling, more flexible output configuration, higher clocks, and it's more menacing too.

Zotac GeForce  GTX 750 Ti

We’ve only got one set of pictures here showing off Zotac’s GeForce GTX 750 Ti, but we tested a standard GTX 750 as well—both cards look identical, hence the single set of pics.

Zotac’s GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GTX 750 conform to NVIDIA’s reference specifications, and they sport the same small 5.75” PCB too. Zotac saw fit to incorporate a larger cooler than the reference model, however. The GeForce GTX 750/750 Ti doesn’t need the larger cooler, but it’s a welcome addition nonetheless. Zotac’s cooler proved to be quietest of the bunch throughout testing and the additional cooling capacity should aid in overclocking too.

The Zotac GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GTX 750 both feature a pair of DVI outputs and a single mini-HDMI output, so no G-SYNC here, but that’s not a big deal in this segment. And because the cards don’t stray from NVIDIA’s reference spec, they don’t require any additional power.

Test System and Unigine Heaven v4.0

How We Configured Our Test Systems: We tested the graphics cards in this article on an EVGA X79 Dark motherboard powered by an Intel Core i7-4960X six-core processor and 16GB of Corsair DDR3-1866 RAM. The first thing we did when configuring the test system was enter the system UEFI and set all values to their "high performance" default settings and disable any integrated peripherals that wouldn't be put to use. The memory's X.M.P. profile was enabled to ensure better-than-stock performance and the solid state drive was then formatted and Windows 8.1 Professional x64 was installed. When the installation was complete, we fully updated the OS and installed the latest DirectX redist along with all of the drivers, games, and benchmark tools necessary to complete our tests.

HotHardware's Test System
Intel Core i7 Powered

Hardware Used:
Intel Core i7-4960X
(3.3GHz, Six-Core)
EVGA X79 Dark
(Intel X79 Express)

Radeon R9 270X
Radeon R7 265
Radeon R7 260
Radeon R7 250
GeForce GTX 760
GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost
GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Zotac GeForce GTX 750
Zotac GeForce GTX 750 Ti
EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti ACX FTW 

16GB Corsair DDR3-1866
OCZ Vertex 3
Integrated Audio
Integrated Network

Relevant Software:
Windows 8.1 Pro x64
DirectX April 2011 Redist
AMD Catalyst v14.1B v1.6
NVIDIA GeForce Drivers v334.69

Benchmarks Used:
Unigine Heaven v4
3DMark "Fire Strike"
Bioshock Infinite
Hitman: Absolution
Batman: Arkham City 
Metro Last Light
Sleeping Dogs
Crysis 3

Unigine Heaven v4.0 Benchmark
Pseudo-DirectX 11 Gaming

Unigine's Heaven Benchmark v4.0 is built around the Unigine game engine. Unigine is a cross-platform, real-time 3D engine, with support for DirectX 9, DirectX 10, DirectX 11 and OpenGL. The Heaven benchmark--when run in DX11 mode--also makes comprehensive use of tessellation technology and advanced SSAO (screen-space ambient occlusion). It also features volumetric cumulonimbus clouds generated by a physically accurate algorithm and a dynamic sky with light scattering.

Unigine Heaven

The new GeForce GTX 750 and GTX 750 Ti outperform the Radeon R7 260X in the Unigine Heaven benchmark, but trail the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost and higher-end cards. Generally speaking, the just-announced Radeon R7 265 also comes out ahead of the 750 / 750 Ti here, but the factory overclocked EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti ACX FTW was able to eek out a victory over the newest Radeon.

3DMark Fire Strike Test

3DMark Fire Strike has two benchmark modes: Normal mode runs at 1920x1080, while Extreme mode targets 2560x1440. GPU target frame buffer utilization for normal mode is 1GB and the benchmark uses tessellation, ambient occlusion, volume illumination, and a medium-quality depth of field filter. The more taxing Extreme mode targets 1.5GB of frame buffer memory and increases detail levels across the board. Extreme mode is explicitly designed for CrossFire / SLI systems. GT 1 focuses on geometry and illumination, with over 100 shadow casting spot lights, 140 non-shadow casting point lights, and 3.9 million vertices calculated for tessellation per frame. And 80 million pixels are processed per frame. GT2 emphasizes particles and GPU simulations. Tessellation volume is reduced to 2.6 million vertices and the number of pixels processed per frame rises to 170 million.

Futuremark 3DMark Fire Strike
Synthetic DirectX Gaming

3DMark Fire Strike

The GeForce  GTX 750 outran the Radeon R7 250 in 3DMark Fire Strike, but couldn't come close to the Radeon R7 260X. The GeForce GTX 750 Ti, however, had no trouble dispatching the Radeon R7 260X, though the R7 265 came out on top.

Batman: Arkham Origins Performance

Batman: Arkham Orgins is a prequel to 2011’s excellent Batman: Arkham City. This recently released prequel, however, lives up to and even surpasses its predecessor in many ways. The game has DirectX 9 and 11 rendering paths, with support for tessellation, multi-view soft shadows, and ambient occlusion. We tested in DX11 mode with all in-game graphical options set to their maximum values, at resolutions of 1920x1200 and 2560x1600.

Batman: Arkham Origins
DirectX 11 Gaming Performance

Batman Arkham Origins

The GeForce GTX 750 outperformed the Radeon R7 260X in Batman Arkham Origins and came in just behind the R7 265 at the higher resolution. The GeForce GTX 750 Ti, however, pulled way ahead of the Radeon R7 265 in this game.

Click To Enlarge

Save for a couple of severe spikes in frame time at the very beginning of our test with a few configurations, there were no major issues with frame pacing to speak of here.

Metro Last Light Performance

Metro Last Light is your typical post-apocalyptic first person shooter game with a few rather unconventional twists. Unlike most FPS titles, there is no health meter to measure your level of ailment; rather, you’re left to deal with life, or lack thereof, more akin to the real world with blood spatter on your visor and your heart rate and respiration level as indicators. Metro Last Light boasts some of the best 3D visuals on the PC platform and includes a DX11 rendering mode that makes use of advanced depth of field effects and character model tessellation for increased realism. This title also supports NVIDIA PhysX technology for impressive in-game physics effects. We tested the game at resolutions of 1920x1200 and 2560x1600 with its in-game image quality options set to their High Quality mode, with DOF effects disabled.

Metro Last Light
DirecX11 Gaming Performance

Metro Last Light

The new GeForce GTX 750 Ti performed just slightly behind the Radeon R7 265 in the Metro Last Light benchmark; the GeForce GTX 750, however, eked out a slight victory over the Radeon R7 260X, though the where right on top of each other for the most part.

Click To Enlarge

Except for a bit of craziness at about the half-way point with a couple of the lower-end configurations, there were no major issues with frame pacing to report in this game.

Bioshock Infinite Performance

BioShock Infinite is clear game-of-the-year material. The floating city of Columbia is one of the most evocative, intense, and gorgeous environments we've ever seen in a PC game -- but how much you like it may depend on what sort of visual wizardry you prefer. BioShock Infinite is built on Unreal Engine 3, and while it pushes that framework's capabilities into the stratosphere, there's a clear difference between BioShock Infinite and, say, Crysis 3. BioShock Infinite emphasizes light, color and motion, and while the characters look more exaggerated and cartoon-like than some other games, they still look great. We tested the game at various resolutions with its DX11 code path with DOF effects enabled.

Bioshock Infinite
DirectX Gaming Performance

Bioshock Infinite

The GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GTX 750 sandwiched the Radeon R7 265 in our Bioshock Infinite tests. The newest GeForce significantly outpaced the Radeon R7 260X, though.

Click To Enlarge

There were a few significant frame time spikes in Bioshock Infinite, scattered throughout the test, but mostly at the beginning and end of the run. Somewhat surprisingly, it was the higher-performing cards that suffered the most.

Sleeping Dogs Performance

Sleeping Dogs is an open-world game in which you play the role of Wei Shen, an undercover cop trying to take down the Triads from the inside. In the game, you have to fight your way up in the organization and take part in various criminal activities without blowing your cover. We tested Sleeping Dogs at two resolutions, with all in-game graphical options set to their maximum values with FXAA enabled.

Sleeping Dogs
DX11 Gaming Performance

Sleeping Dogs

The GeForce GTX 750 and GTX 750 Ti had no trouble dispatching the Radeon R7 260X in the Sleeping Dogs benchmark, but the Radeon R7 265 finished a notch ahead overall.

Click To Enlarge

And there were no issues frame pacing to speak of in this game, whatsoever. That bit of weirdness you see at the end of the run is the start of the scene transition in the benchmark.

Hitman: Absolution Performance

Hitman: Absolution follows Agent 47, a cold-blooded assassin, who takes on his most dangerous contract to date. Betrayed by those he once trusted - and now hunted by the police - he suddenly finds himself at the center of a dark conspiracy and must embark on a personal journey through a corrupt and twisted world. We tested the game at multiple resolutions, with all in-game options set to their maximum values and global illumination and 4X anti-aliasing enabled.

Hitman: Absolution
DirectX 11 Gaming Performance

Hitman: Absolution

The performance trend in the Hitman Absolution benchmark looks much like Sleeping Dogs on the previous page. The GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GTX 750 outpace the Radeon R7 260X here, but can't quite catch the Radeon R7 265.

Click To Enlarge

There were no major frame pacing issues to speak of either in this game.  All of the cards delivered frames in a consistent manner here.

Crysis 3 Performance

Crysis 3, which is powered by Crytek’s proprietary CryENGINE 3 technology, is the third installment in this popular franchise. Crysis 3 is the sequel to 2011’s Crysis 2 and follows Prophet as he returns to New York a few years after the events of Crysis 2. Like previous games in the franchise, Crysis 3 has impressive visuals that can tax even the most powerful PCs when cranked up to their maximum values. We tested this game at various resolutions with all in-game graphics options set to Very High, with 4X MSAA and 16X anisotropic filtering enabled and motion blur set to high.

Crysis 3
DirectX 11 Gaming Performance

Crysis 3

The GeForce GTX 750's 1GB frame buffer can't handle Crysis at the higher-resolution, but at 1920, the performance trend in Crysis 3 was similar to a few of the other titles we tested. The GeForce GTX 750 and GTX 750 Ti outran the Radeon R7 260X, but the R7 265 came out ahead but a small margin.

Click To Enlarge

And once again, there were no major frame pacing issues to report with Crysis 3, according to our FCAT data.

Overclocking the GTX 750 Ti

We also spent a little time overclocking the GeForce GTX 750 Ti to see what kind of additional frequency headroom it had left under its hood. For these tests, we used the latest edition of EVGA's Precision X GPU tweaking utility, which is compatible with NVIDIA's GeForce GTX 700 series products, including these latest Maxwell-based products.

Like Kepler, overclocking a Maxwell-based GeForce GTX series graphics card requires a bit more tweaking then previous-gen products, due to all of the new options available and the complexities associated with GPU Boost 2.0. Sometimes, you’ll find that increasing a particular voltage or frequency may appear to function properly, when in fact performance decreases due to errors or throttling. You may also find that the actual GPU Boost clock may travel above or below the designated offset value when the power and/or temperature targets are also increased.

EVGA's Precision X Tweaking Utility Running On The GeForce GTX 750 Ti

We did a few things when experimenting with overclocked speeds on the GTX 750 Ti. First we tried the most basic option available--we simply changed the temperature target from the default 80'C and increased it to 95'C to see what kind of impact it would have on performance. Then, to push things much further, we increased the temperature target and upped the GPU and Memory clock offsets and ran a few tests. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, we didn't overclock both of the GeForce GTX 750 Ti cards we had on hand, and focused solely on EVGA's FTW w/ ACX model. We have seen reference GeForce GTX 750 Ti cards running at upwards of 1.3GHz, however.

When all was said and done, we were able to take the EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti ACX FTW all the way up to an impressive 1.468GHz GPU clock, with 5.63Gbps memory. That’s a huge jump over NVIDIA’s reference clocks of 1085MHz / 5.4Gbps. It certainly appears NVIDIA was very conservative with reference clocks this time around.

Overclocking The GeForce GTX 750 Ti
Putting The Pedal To the Metal

While we had the card overclocked, we re-ran a couple of high-resolution tests and saw some nice performance improvements. In face, the overclocking allowed the EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti to overtake the Radeon R9 270X in Bioschock Infinite.

Power Consumption and Noise

Before bringing this article to a close, we'd like to cover a few final data points--namely, power consumption, temperatures, and noise. Throughout all of our benchmarking and testing, we monitored acoustics and tracked how much power our test system was consuming using a power meter. Our goal was to give you an idea of how much power each configuration used while idling and also while under a heavy workload. Please keep in mind that we were testing total system power consumption at the outlet here, not just the power being drawn by the graphics cards alone.

Total System Power Consumption
Tested at the Outlet

Here is where the GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GTX 750 looks most impressive in our opinion. In terms of frame rates, NVIDIA's latest GeForces trade blows with the Radeon R7 260X and upcoming Radeon R7 265. But there is no contest in terms of power consumption and efficiency. The GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GTX 750 consume similar amounts of power at idle, but under load they consumed significantly less power than similarly performing cards. All of the tuning and tweaking NVIDIA has done to Maxwell has clearly paid off in the performance per watt department.

With power consumption so low, temperatures and noise are non-issues as well. The GeForce GTX 750-series cards we tested typically operated in the mid-50'C range under load and remained virtually silent throughout testing. The cards simply do not get hot.  We should note, however, that the dual-fan ACX setup on the EVGA card is louder than the Zotac or reference cooler, though it is still quiet overall.

Our Summary and Conclusion

Performance Summary: NVIDIA’s GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GTX 750 performed well throughout our testing. In terms of framerates, the GeForce GTX 750 Ti typically landed somewhere in between the Radeon R7 260X and R7 265, and trailed the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost. There were a couple of spots—namely Batman Arkham Origins and Bioshock Infinite—where the GeForce GTX 750 Ti was able to pull well ahead of the Radeon R7 265, however. The GeForce GTX 750 traded blows with the Radeon R7 260X, though the GeForce was the faster of the two cards overall.

Where the GeForce GTX 750 and GTX 750 Ti really shined was in regard to power consumption. Despite offering competitive overall performance to their peers, the cards consumed far less power under load. The effort NVIDIA put into improving power consumption and efficiency have clearly paid off with Maxwell. The GeForce GTX 750 Ti is also a very capable overclocker. The EVGA card we tested had no trouble hitting a GPU frequency in excess of 1.4GHz. And reference models should be able to hit upwards of 1.3GHz without much effort.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti - $149 MSRP

It should be pretty obvious at this point why AMD adjusted pricing on the Radeon R7 260X and announced the Radeon R7 265 last week. NVIDIA’s new GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GTX 750 compete favorably with the cards and they’re arriving at similar price points too. Reference GeForce GTX 750 cards will carry an MSRP of $119, while GeForce GTX 750 Ti cards will be priced around $149. The Zotac cards we took a look at will be priced in-line with NVIDIA’s suggested pricing, but the company will also offer an overclocked GTX 750 Ti at $164.99. The completely custom EVGA GeForce GTX 750 Ti FTW card will arrive at $169.99. Unlike the Radeon R7 265 though, you’ll actually be able to buy GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GTX 750 cards today.

In terms of their price vs. performance, the GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GTX 750 won’t shake things up too much on the desktop. Performance is good and pricing is in-line with competing offerings. The GM107 GPU’s relatively low power consumption is a clear differentiator, however, and make it extremely well suited to small form factors and mobile applications. We suspect this GPU is going to find its way into a smorgasbord of Steam Boxes, all-in-one systems, and eventually gaming laptops.

We’re used to seeing NVIDIA launch big, honking, chips to showcase a new architecture, but the GM107 gives a nice glimpse into what Maxwell can do. Overall, we really dig the GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GTX 750. The cards offer competitive performance, in a small, cool, and quiet form factor.

  • Great Power Characteristics
  • Good Performance
  • Nice Overclocking Headroom
  • Small, Cool, and Quiet
  • No SLI
  • Trails the GeForce GTX 650 Ti Boost

Content Property of HotHardware.com