Show
Sửa lần cuối: 22/8/16 General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked. Pipelines / CUDA cores1344640CUDA cores1344640Core clock speed915 MHz1020 MHzBoost clock speed980 MHz1085 MHzNumber of transistors3,540 million1,870 millionManufacturing process technology28 nm28 nmPower consumption (TDP)150 Watt60 WattTexture fill rate102.5 billion/sec43.40Floating-point performance2,459.5 gflops1,389 gflops Size and compatibilityInformation on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). Bus supportPCI Express 3.0PCI Express 3.0InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16Length9.5" (24.1 cm)5.7" (14.5 cm)Height4.376" (11.1 cm)4.376" (11.1 cm)Width2-slot2-slotSupplementary power connectorsTwo 6-pinNoneSLI options+no data MemoryParameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM. Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GBMemory bus width192-bit GDDR5128 BitMemory clock speed6.0 GB/s5.4 GB/sMemory bandwidth144.2 GB/s86.4 GB/sShared memory-- Video outputs and portsTypes and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself. Display ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPortOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMIMulti monitor support4 displays4 displaysHDMI++HDCP++Maximum VGA resolution2048x15362048x1536Audio input for HDMIInternalInternal TechnologiesSupported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes. 3D Blu-Ray+no dataBlu Ray 3Dno data+3D Gaming++3D Vision++3D Vision Liveno data+ API supportList of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions. DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)Shader Model5.15.1OpenGL4.34.6OpenCL1.21.2Vulkan1.1.1261.1.126CUDA++ Synthetic benchmark performanceNon-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale. Combined synthetic benchmark scoreThis is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly. 660 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 12% in our combined benchmark results. PassmarkThis is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities. Benchmark coverage: 25% 660 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 12% in Passmark. 3DMark Vantage Performance3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead. Benchmark coverage: 17% 660 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 10% in 3DMark Vantage Performance. 3DMark 11 Performance GPU3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy. Benchmark coverage: 16% 660 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 56% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU. 3DMark Fire Strike ScoreBenchmark coverage: 14% 660 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 18% in 3DMark Fire Strike Score. 3DMark Fire Strike GraphicsFire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware. Benchmark coverage: 14% 660 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 27% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics. 3DMark Cloud Gate GPUCloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid. Benchmark coverage: 14% 660 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 20% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU. GeekBench 5 OpenCLGeekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group. Benchmark coverage: 9% 660 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 30% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL. GeekBench 5 VulkanGeekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group. Benchmark coverage: 5% 660 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 50% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan. GeekBench 5 CUDAGeekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA. Benchmark coverage: 4% 750 Ti outperforms 660 Ti by 11% in GeekBench 5 CUDA. Unigine Heaven 3.0This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine. Benchmark coverage: 4% 660 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 45% in Unigine Heaven 3.0. Octane Render OctaneBenchThis is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists. Benchmark coverage: 4% 660 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 23% in Octane Render OctaneBench. Unigine Heaven 4.0This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark, a newer version of Unigine 3.0 with relatively small differences. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. The benchmark is still sometimes used, despite its significant age, as it was released back in 2013. Benchmark coverage: 1% 660 Ti outperforms 750 Ti by 43% in Unigine Heaven 4.0. Mining hashratesCryptocurrency mining performance of GeForce GTX 660 Ti and GeForce GTX 750 Ti. Usually measured in megahashes per second. Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) 99 Mh/s 183 Mh/s Decred / DCR (Decred) no data 0.51 Gh/s Ethereum / ETH (DaggerHashimoto) no data 2.3 Mh/s Monero / XMR (CryptoNight) no data 0.25 kh/s Zcash / ZEC (Equihash) no data 74.4 Sol/s Gaming performanceLet's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS. Average FPS across all PC gamesHere are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions: Performance in popular gamesFull HD Low Preset Cyberpunk 207718−20 16−18 Full HD Medium Preset Assassin's Creed Odyssey24−27 +14.3% 21−24 −14.3% Assassin's Creed Valhalla16−18 +13.3% 14−16 −13.3% Battlefield 535−40 +14.7% 30−35 −14.7% Call of Duty: Modern Warfare30−33 +11.1% 27−30 −11.1% Cyberpunk 207718−20 +12.5% 16−18 −12.5% Far Cry 527−30 +16% 24−27 −16% Far Cry New Dawn30−33 +11.1% 27−30 −11.1% Forza Horizon 440−45 +14.3% 35−40 −14.3% Hitman 330−33 +15.4% 24−27 −15.4% Horizon Zero Dawn21−24 +9.5% 21−24 −9.5% Red Dead Redemption 218−20 +11.8% 16−18 −11.8% Shadow of the Tomb Raider24−27 +14.3% 21−24 −14.3% Watch Dogs: Legion20−22 +11.1% 18−20 −11.1% Full HD High Preset Assassin's Creed Odyssey24−27 +14.3% 21−24 −14.3% Assassin's Creed Valhalla16−18 +13.3% 14−16 −13.3% Battlefield 535−40 +14.7% 30−35 −14.7% Call of Duty: Modern Warfare30−33 +11.1% 27−30 −11.1% Cyberpunk 207718−20 +12.5% 16−18 −12.5% Far Cry 527−30 +16% 24−27 −16% Far Cry New Dawn30−33 +11.1% 27−30 −11.1% Forza Horizon 440−45 +14.3% 35−40 −14.3% Hitman 330−33 +15.4% 24−27 −15.4% Horizon Zero Dawn21−24 +9.5% 21−24 −9.5% Metro Exodus16−18 +13.3% 14−16 −13.3% Red Dead Redemption 218−20 +11.8% 16−18 −11.8% Shadow of the Tomb Raider24−27 +14.3% 21−24 −14.3% The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt21−24 +15% 20−22 −15% Watch Dogs: Legion20−22 +11.1% 18−20 −11.1% Full HD Ultra Preset Assassin's Creed Odyssey24−27 +14.3% 21−24 −14.3% Assassin's Creed Valhalla16−18 +13.3% 14−16 −13.3% Battlefield 535−40 +14.7% 30−35 −14.7% Cyberpunk 207718−20 +12.5% 16−18 −12.5% Far Cry 527−30 +16% 24−27 −16% Far Cry New Dawn30−33 +11.1% 27−30 −11.1% Forza Horizon 440−45 +14.3% 35−40 −14.3% The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt21−24 +15% 20−22 −15% Watch Dogs: Legion20−22 +11.1% 18−20 −11.1% 1440p High Preset Call of Duty: Modern Warfare16−18 +13.3% 14−16 −13.3% Hitman 318−20 +12.5% 16−18 −12.5% Horizon Zero Dawn16−18 +6.7% 14−16 −6.7% Metro Exodus10−11 +11.1% 9−10 −11.1% Red Dead Redemption 28−9 +14.3% 7−8 −14.3% Shadow of the Tomb Raider14−16 +7.7% 12−14 −7.7% 1440p Ultra Preset Assassin's Creed Odyssey10−12 +22.2% 9−10 −22.2% Assassin's Creed Valhalla7−8 +40% 5−6 −40% Battlefield 521−24 +23.5% 16−18 −23.5% Cyberpunk 20776−7 +20% 5−6 −20% Far Cry 518−20 +12.5% 16−18 −12.5% Far Cry New Dawn20−22 +17.6% 16−18 −17.6% Forza Horizon 421−24 +16.7% 18−20 −16.7% The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt9−10 +12.5% 8−9 −12.5% Watch Dogs: Legion6−7 +20% 5−6 −20% 4K High Preset Call of Duty: Modern Warfare8−9 +14.3% 7−8 −14.3% Hitman 310−11 +11.1% 9−10 −11.1% Horizon Zero Dawn9−10 +0% 9−10 +0% Metro Exodus5−6 +25% 4−5 −25% Red Dead Redemption 26−7 +20% 5−6 −20% Shadow of the Tomb Raider6−7 +20% 5−6 −20% The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt9−10 +12.5% 8−9 −12.5% 4K Ultra Preset Assassin's Creed Odyssey6−7 +20% 5−6 −20% Assassin's Creed Valhalla5−6 +25% 4−5 −25% Battlefield 510−11 +25% 8−9 −25% Cyberpunk 20772−3 +100% 1−2 −100% Far Cry 59−10 +0% 9−10 +0% Far Cry New Dawn12−14 +9.1% 10−12 −9.1% Forza Horizon 414−16 +7.7% 12−14 −7.7% Watch Dogs: Legion4−5 +0% 4−5 +0% This is how GTX 660 Ti and GTX 750 Ti compete in popular games: 1080p resolution:
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
All in all, in popular games:
Advantages and disadvantagesPerformance score 11.28 10.04 Recency 16 August 2012 18 February 2014 Cost $299 $149 Memory bus width 192 128 Pipelines / CUDA cores 1344 640 Memory bandwidth 144.2 86.4 Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 60 Watt The GeForce GTX 660 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 750 Ti in performance tests. Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer. Cast your own voteDo you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card. GeForce GTX 660 Ti GeForce GTX 750 Ti Similar GPU comparisonsWe selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider. User ratings: view and submitHere you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself. Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5: Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5: Questions and commentsHere you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch. |