
GeForce GTX 750 vs Radeon E8870PCIe

GeForce GTX 750
Popular choices:

Radeon E8870PCIe
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Radeon E8870PCIe
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon E8870PCIe is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.7% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce GTX 750.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 750 | Radeon E8870PCIe |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GTX 750 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GTX 750 holds the technical lead. Priced at $35 (vs $200), it costs 83% less, resulting in a 461.9% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce GTX 750 | Radeon E8870PCIe |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+461.9%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($35) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($200) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GTX 750 and Radeon E8870PCIe

GeForce GTX 750
The GeForce GTX 750 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 18 2014. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1020 MHz to 1085 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,312 points. Launch price was $119.

Radeon E8870PCIe
The Radeon E8870PCIe is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 25 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 575 MHz to 625 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 37W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3,368 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GTX 750 scores 3,312 and the Radeon E8870PCIe reaches 3,368 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GTX 750 is built on Maxwell while the Radeon E8870PCIe uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 512 (GeForce GTX 750) vs 640 (Radeon E8870PCIe). Raw compute: 1.111 TFLOPS (GeForce GTX 750) vs 0.8 TFLOPS (Radeon E8870PCIe). Boost clocks: 1085 MHz vs 625 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 750 | Radeon E8870PCIe |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3,312 | 3,368+2% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 512 | 640+25% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.111 TFLOPS+39% | 0.8 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1085 MHz+74% | 625 MHz |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 40+25% |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB+60% | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+700% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GTX 750 | Radeon E8870PCIe |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (GeForce GTX 750) vs 0.25 MB (Radeon E8870PCIe) — the GeForce GTX 750 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 750 | Radeon E8870PCIe |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+700% | 0.25 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GTX 750 draws 55W versus the Radeon E8870PCIe's 37W — a 39.1% difference. The Radeon E8870PCIe is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 300W (GeForce GTX 750) vs 350W (Radeon E8870PCIe). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 750 | Radeon E8870PCIe |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 55W | 37W-33% |
| Recommended PSU | 300W-14% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 145mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 60.2 | 91.0+51% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GTX 750 launched at $120 MSRP and currently averages $35, while the Radeon E8870PCIe launched at $250 and now averages $200. The GeForce GTX 750 costs 82.5% less ($165 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 94.6 (GeForce GTX 750) vs 16.8 (Radeon E8870PCIe) — the GeForce GTX 750 offers 463.1% better value.
| Feature | GeForce GTX 750 | Radeon E8870PCIe |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $120-52% | $250 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $35-83% | $200 |
| Performance per Dollar | 94.6+463% | 16.8 |
| Codename | GM107 | Venus |
| Release | February 18 2014 | January 25 2014 |
| Ranking | #559 | #734 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















