NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Comparison

The GeForce GTX 750 and GeForce GT 1010 are two entry-level NVIDIA parts separated by nearly seven years of architecture evolution, yet the older card holds a clear performance advantage in the available data. The GTX 750 wins the only shared benchmark decisively, and it also carries a significantly higher average benchmark score. The GT 1010, meanwhile, offers a more modern feature set and lower power draw. The data suggests the GTX 750 is the stronger performer for raw compute tasks, while the GT 1010 is a more efficient and modern option for basic display output and legacy system upgrades.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the GeForce GTX 750 is the faster GPU. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 750 scores 9,315, which is 39.1% higher than the GT 1010's 6,698. This is not a marginal difference; it is a substantial gap that places the two cards in different performance tiers. The GTX 750's average benchmark score of 7,222 further reinforces this, sitting at the 40th percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 1010's average of 6,698 places it at the 38th percentile.

However, the GT 1010 is not without its merits. Its 30 W TDP is notably lower than the GTX 750's 55 W, and it requires a suggested PSU of only 200 W compared to 250 W. For users building a low-power HTPC or upgrading an older office machine, the GT 1010's efficiency and its 2 GB of memory (double the GTX 750's 1 GB) might be more attractive than raw compute throughput. The GT 1010 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), a newer feature level than the GTX 750's 12 (11_0).

Who should pick which? For anyone intending to do any gaming or GPU-accelerated compute, the GTX 750 is the obvious choice. Its 39.1% lead in OpenCL performance and higher average score make it the better performer. The GT 1010 is a better fit for scenarios where power consumption is critical, the system PSU is weak, or the user simply needs a modern, low-profile card for video output. The GT 1010's 2 GB memory buffer is also a practical advantage for modern desktop environments with multiple high-resolution displays, even if its 64-bit bus limits bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent entirely different GPU generations and manufacturing approaches. The GTX 750 is built on the Maxwell architecture (chip GM107), fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a mature design that was the foundation for a successful generation of mid-range GPUs. In contrast, the GT 1010 uses the Pascal architecture (chip GP108), manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This newer process node allows for a significantly smaller die: 74 mm² versus the GTX 750's 148 mm², despite a similar transistor count (1,800 million vs 1,870 million).

The architectural differences are profound. The GTX 750 packs 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The GT 1010, by contrast, has exactly half of each: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This halving of the execution resources explains the substantial performance gap, even though the GT 1010 runs at much higher clocks (1,468 MHz boost vs 1,085 MHz). The GTX 750's higher output rates—17.36 GPixel/s pixel rate and 34.72 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 11.74 GPixel/s and 23.49 GTexel/s for the GT 1010—confirm it has more raw throughput capacity.

Memory architecture also differs sharply. The GTX 750 uses a 128-bit memory bus with 1 GB of GDDR5, yielding 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 1010 uses a 64-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, halving bandwidth to 48.06 GB/s. The GT 1010's memory clocks are higher (6 Gbps effective vs 5 Gbps), but the narrower bus limits overall bandwidth. The GTX 750's FP32 throughput of 1,111.0 GFLOPS dwarfs the GT 1010's 751.6 GFLOPS, giving the older card a 47.8% advantage in raw compute.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The GeForce GTX 750 is significantly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 9,315 versus 6,698 for the GT 1010, a 39.1% lead. Its FP32 throughput is also much higher at 1,111.0 GFLOPS compared to 751.6 GFLOPS.

Q: Does the GT 1010 have more memory?

A: Yes, the GT 1010 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the GTX 750's 1 GB. However, the GTX 750's memory bandwidth is much higher at 80.19 GB/s versus 48.06 GB/s due to its wider 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card is more power efficient?

A: The GT 1010 is far more efficient. Its TDP is 30 W versus 55 W for the GTX 750, and it requires a suggested PSU of only 200 W compared to 250 W. This makes it a better choice for low-power systems.

Q: What is the main architectural advantage of the GT 1010?

A: The GT 1010 is built on a newer 14 nm process at Samsung, versus the GTX 750's 28 nm process at TSMC. This allows for a much smaller die (74 mm² vs 148 mm²) and a higher transistor density of 24.3M / mm² versus 12.6M / mm².

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The GT 1010 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GTX 750 supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GTX 750 has an average benchmark score of 7,222, placing it in the 40th percentile of all GPUs. The GT 1010's average score is 6,698, putting it in the 38th percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | GeForce GTX 750 | GeForce GT 1010 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Maxwell | Pascal |

| Chip | GM107 | GP108 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 1,800 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 74 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 24.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1020 MHz | 1228 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1085 MHz | 1468 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 5 Gbps effective | 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 48.06 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 256 |

| TMUs | 32 | 16 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 17.36 GPixel/s | 11.74 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 34.72 GTexel/s | 23.49 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,111.0 GFLOPS | 751.6 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 30 W |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 200 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a | 1x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 2.0 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Length | 145 mm / 5.7 inches | 147 mm / 5.8 inches |

| Release Date | 2014-02-17 | 2021-01-12 |

| Launch MSRP | 119 USD | Not specified |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a decisive victory for the GTX 750. The GTX 750 scores 9,315, while the GT 1010 scores 6,698, giving the GTX 750 a 39.1% advantage. This is a massive gap that aligns perfectly with the raw specification differences. The GTX 750's doubled execution resources (512 vs 256 shading units) and nearly doubled FP32 throughput (1,111.0 vs 751.6 GFLOPS) translate directly into superior compute performance.

The GTX 750's win is also reflected in its average benchmark score of 7,222, which is 7.8% higher than the GT 1010's 6,698. This suggests the OpenCL result is not an outlier but representative of overall performance. Looking at the nearest rivals for each card further contextualizes the gap. The GTX 750's closest competitors include the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203, 0.3% behind) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (7,157, 0.9% behind), showing it sits comfortably in a mid-range cluster. The GT 1010's rivals are lower-tier mobile parts like the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6,764, 1% ahead) and R7 M460 (6,612, 1.3% behind), confirming its position at the bottom of the desktop GPU stack.

The data shows no benchmark where the GT 1010 wins. In the single head-to-head test, the GTX 750 takes the win. The GT 1010's higher boost clock (1,468 MHz vs 1,085 MHz) and faster memory clock (6 Gbps vs 5 Gbps) are not enough to overcome the fundamental disadvantage of having half the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, along with a narrower memory bus. While the GT 1010 is a more modern and efficient part, its performance ceiling is significantly lower. The GTX 750, despite being from an older generation and having less memory, remains the superior choice for any compute-oriented workload according to the benchmark evidence.