NVIDIA GeForce 820A vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 820A and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti are both end-of-life mobile and desktop parts, respectively, but they occupy completely different performance tiers despite their close average benchmark scores. The single head-to-head benchmark available shows a massive gap between them, with the GTX 750 Ti delivering a Geekbench OpenCL score of 10,827 compared to the 820A’s 2,983. That is a 72.4% deficit for the 820A, placing it far behind its rival in compute workloads. While both cards sit at the 19th percentile among all GPUs, this is a case where the aggregate percentile masks an enormous real-world performance chasm.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is emphatic. The GTX 750 Ti scores 10,827, while the 820A manages just 2,983. That translates to a deltaPct of -72.4% for the 820A, meaning the GTX 750 Ti is roughly 3.6 times faster in raw compute throughput. This is not a marginal win; it is a generational and architectural stomping. The 820A’s nearest rivals in the aggregate benchmark list include the GTX 860M (2,967), Quadro P600 (2,923), and even an RTX 4060 Ti 8 GB (2,913), all scoring within a 2.4% band of the 820A. Meanwhile, the GTX 750 Ti’s nearest rivals are the same group, but with the 820A sitting just 1% behind it in the aggregate average — a number that flatters the 820A because its only benchmark is that single low OpenCL score.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite for the GTX 750 Ti, it shows versatility across multiple APIs: it scores 5,182 in Geekbench Metal, 10,065 in Geekbench Vulkan, and 3,903 in Passmark G3D. Its Passmark DX11 score is 26, DX12 is 18, and DX9 is 60. Compute performance is solid with a Passmark GPU Compute score of 1,744. The 820A has no comparable data outside that one OpenCL result, so the head-to-head picture is incomplete but unambiguous in the one test where both appear. The GTX 750 Ti wins the only available head-to-head benchmark, and it does so by an overwhelming margin.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 820A has an average benchmark score of 2,983, while the GTX 750 Ti averages 2,953. The 820A leads by 1% according to the nearestRivals deltaPct data, despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test badly.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 750 Ti in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 750 Ti scores 10,827 versus the 820A’s 2,983, giving the GTX 750 Ti a 72.4% advantage. In absolute terms, the GTX 750 Ti delivers more than 3.6 times the compute score.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both list DirectX 12 (11_0) as their supported API version, and both support OpenGL 4.6. However, the GTX 750 Ti also lists Vulkan 1.4 support, while the 820A’s Vulkan support is not specified in the data.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The 820A has 1,024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 750 Ti has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 86.40 GB/s bandwidth — more than five times the memory bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power draw?

A: The 820A has a TDP of 15 W, while the GTX 750 Ti is rated at 60 W. The 820A is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors, whereas the GTX 750 Ti is a single-slot card that also requires no power connectors but suggests a 250 W PSU.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The 820A was released in March 2014 and succeeded by the GeForce 900A, while the GTX 750 Ti was released in February 2014 and succeeded by the GeForce 900 series.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 750 Ti wins in every measurable compute and graphics scenario presented in the data. Its only head-to-head benchmark shows a 72.4% lead in OpenCL, and its additional benchmark results — Metal, Vulkan, and multiple Passmark tests — demonstrate broad API coverage and consistent mid-range performance. For tasks like GPU-accelerated compute, modern API gaming (DX11, DX12, Vulkan), or any workload that leverages memory bandwidth, the GTX 750 Ti is the clear choice. Its 86.40 GB/s bandwidth and 1,388.8 GFLOPS FP32 throughput dwarf the 820A’s 16.02 GB/s and 240.0 GFLOPS.

The 820A’s only “win” is in the aggregate average score, where it edges out the GTX 750 Ti by 1% (2,983 vs 2,953). This is a statistical artifact of having only one benchmark, but if you are looking strictly at the aggregate percentile, the 820A is technically ahead. Additionally, the 820A’s 15 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient for ultra-low-power embedded or portable applications, where sustained compute performance is not the priority. Its IGP form factor means it requires no extra cooling or power connectors, making it suitable for compact, fanless designs.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ dramatically in nearly every specification that matters for performance. The 820A uses a GF117 chip with 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die, while the GTX 750 Ti uses a GM107 chip with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. The 820A has 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs; the GTX 750 Ti has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs — 6.7 times more shading units and 2.5 times more ROPs.

Memory is another chasm: the 820A has 1 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus (16.02 GB/s), while the GTX 750 Ti has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus (86.40 GB/s). Clock speeds are not directly comparable because the 820A lists only a memory clock of 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), while the GTX 750 Ti has a base clock of 1020 MHz, boost of 1085 MHz, and memory at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). The pixel rate is 2.500 GPixel/s for the 820A versus 17.36 GPixel/s for the GTX 750 Ti; texture rates are 10.00 GTexel/s versus 43.40 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 240.0 GFLOPS versus 1,388.8 GFLOPS.

Form factors differ as well: the 820A is an IGP with portable-device-dependent outputs, while the GTX 750 Ti is a single-slot card measuring 145 mm (5.7 inches) long with 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a outputs. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the 820A versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 750 Ti. Power requirements are 15 W versus 60 W, with no power connectors on either, but the GTX 750 Ti suggests a 250 W PSU.

Architecture Differences

The 820A is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture, which is an older design originally optimized for DirectX 11-class workloads. It uses a 28 nm process at TSMC with a transistor density of 5.0M per mm². The GTX 750 Ti, by contrast, uses the Maxwell architecture, which is a significant architectural leap in efficiency and compute throughput. Both are on the same 28 nm TSMC process, but the GTX 750 Ti achieves a much higher transistor density of 12.6M per mm², packing 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die versus 585 million into 116 mm².

The Maxwell architecture in the GTX 750 Ti supports Vulkan 1.4, which the Fermi-based 820A does not list. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but Maxwell’s shader and memory subsystems are far more advanced. The 820A’s 96 shading units and 16 TMUs are typical of a low-end Fermi part, while the GTX 750 Ti’s 640 shading units and 40 TMUs reflect a properly scaled mid-range design. The memory architecture also differs fundamentally: the 820A uses a narrow 64-bit DDR3 interface, while the GTX 750 Ti uses a 128-bit GDDR5 interface, which quadruples bandwidth potential. The GTX 750 Ti’s 1,870 million transistors versus 585 million is a 3.2 times difference in raw transistor count, explaining the massive compute disparity.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Ti is the superior GPU for virtually any compute or graphics task. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 72.4%, offers 5.4 times the memory bandwidth, and delivers 5.8 times the FP32 throughput. The GTX 750 Ti also has a broader API support list, including Vulkan 1.4, and more than double the VRAM at 2 GB versus 1 GB. Anyone building a system that needs to run modern games, GPU compute, or even older DX11 titles should pick the GTX 750 Ti without hesitation.

The 820A’s only advantages are its 15 W TDP and its marginally higher average benchmark score (2,983 vs 2,953), the latter being a quirk of limited data. If you need an ultra-low-power integrated solution for a portable device, the 820A’s IGP form factor and minimal power draw are compelling. But for any workload that requires actual graphics processing power, the GTX 750 Ti is the only rational choice. The 820A is a legacy part for legacy systems; the GTX 750 Ti is a legacy part that still has meaningful utility. The launch MSRP of the GTX 750 Ti was 149 USD, but the performance gap makes it worth far more than that in today’s used market. The verdict is simple: pick the GTX 750 Ti unless your power budget is absolutely constrained to 15 W.