GTX 750 Ti (2 GB) - What Do Owners Think?

needmorecarnitine

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
4,609
I DID point out the display's ceiling in the first post - at no point did I say it was a GPU bottleneck. Instead, I made plain it was a display-hardware bottleneck.

So what? Do you think because a 750Ti can hit 60fps on occasion that there would be no benefit from a more powerful card with your display?


In the op, you simply acted as if no more gpu power would be needed for 1080 and 60hz which is way beyond silly.

This is how most of his threads are
 

needmorecarnitine

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
4,609
and why are you telling me "don't assume"? You are the one who omitted almost all of the important stuff from the OP!
 

Sunin

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - August 2008
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
3,421
Why not look at the numerous reviews? 750 ti is a lower end card and I have no idea why you think a 760 would be too much for 60hz 1080. Even a 760 is not going to get 60 fps in demanding games without quite a few settings reduced. Again simply look at reviews and will you see this.

I was going to say some games at 1080p is hard to push 60fps, generally the games issue, like gta iv, but still 750ti makes for a great server card or media center or light gaming that is all
 

misterbobby

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
3,814
I was going to say some games at 1080p is hard to push 60fps, generally the games issue, like gta iv, but still 750ti makes for a great server card or media center or light gaming that is all
Yeah the issue in GTA 4 is the cpu and no cpu in the world can keep you above 45 fps in spots. Its the shadow setting in that game and it needs to be completely off to stay above 60 fps even with an oced current gen i5/i7.

But yeah the 750 ti is a great card and you dont have to reduce too many settings to keep the framerate up even in most demanding games. A 760 is a much better choice if you have a little more money to spend and a decent power supply.
 

PGHammer

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
3,315
So what? Do you think because a 750Ti can hit 60fps on occasion that there would be no benefit from a more powerful card with your display?




This is how most of his threads are

Considering it's a TN display (low-end and cheap), that is highly likely. It's a matter of knowing the display's limits, and not trying to push beyond them - what's so odd about that?
 

PGHammer

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
3,315
In the op, you simply acted as if no more gpu power would be needed for 1080 and 60hz which is way beyond silly.

It depends on my game mix - and nowhere are the two games you cited (Skyrim and GTA4) on that list - because I own neither one.
 

needmorecarnitine

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
4,609
Considering it's a TN display (low-end and cheap), that is highly likely. It's a matter of knowing the display's limits, and not trying to push beyond them - what's so odd about that?


I'd say that about half the time you post I have no idea where you come up with the stuff you say.

Like this. What does it being a TN display have to do with whether a 750 Ti will get you satisfying performance for the games you play?
 

PGHammer

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
3,315
I'd say that about half the time you post I have no idea where you come up with the stuff you say.

Like this. What does it being a TN display have to do with whether a 750 Ti will get you satisfying performance for the games you play?

Because anything above that would largely be wasted on a display with a 1920x1080 @ 60 Hz ceiling.

If I were looking for performance above that, I would have to replace the display first - which I have no plans on doing. Larger than twenty-three inches I have no space for, and taller than 1920x1080 I have no plans for, either. In other words, if I WERE to replace my current display, it would likely be with another of the same specs.

With the upper limit defined, next comes what meets the specs without breaking my budget wide open. Sticking just with 2 GB nVidia GPUs (remember, I'm looking to upgrade - not crossgrade) and sub-$200, there is GTX650Ti, refurbished (and some new) GTX660, and GTX750Ti. The GTX750Ti is the newest of this group, and also the one GPU with the lowest TDP by far. Further, due to that TDP, I can upgrade to that without necessarily having to upgrade the PSU (which would certainly be the case with even GTX660, let alone GTX760 or above). I'm not looking to blow up my budget here.
 

needmorecarnitine

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 10, 2004
Messages
4,609
Because anything above that would largely be wasted on a display with a 1920x1080 @ 60 Hz ceiling.

If I were looking for performance above that, I would have to replace the display first - which I have no plans on doing.


What does that have to do with, in any possible way, your screen being a TN?

And for most gamers on hardforum, they would prefer to have a card that could maintain a minimum fps that matched their display's refresh rate, not the maximum. If the 750 Ti outputs 60fps or higher in game X 8% of the time while average 34fps with lows of 19, I would say you could still benefit from a better card. Yes, some of the videocard's power would be "wasted" as you say.

That being said the Ti could max out (at 60Hz) almost every game out there because most games are older. Even with newer games you could mess with the settings to get it perform well/adequately at 1920x1080. But if I were buying new (which I am considering again) I wouldn't just consider which games I am playing today, I would make reasonable assumptions about what I might need in the next year or two.
 

melk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 21, 2014
Messages
1,073
Which is why personally I bought a 750 Ti for "right now" and will upgrade once there are high-end Maxwell cards available. After seeing what the 750 Ti raised the low end to, I discarded the idea of buying a current 770 or 780.
 

PGHammer

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
3,315
What does that have to do with, in any possible way, your screen being a TN?

And for most gamers on hardforum, they would prefer to have a card that could maintain a minimum fps that matched their display's refresh rate, not the maximum. If the 750 Ti outputs 60fps or higher in game X 8% of the time while average 34fps with lows of 19, I would say you could still benefit from a better card. Yes, some of the videocard's power would be "wasted" as you say.

That being said the Ti could max out (at 60Hz) almost every game out there because most games are older. Even with newer games you could mess with the settings to get it perform well/adequately at 1920x1080. But if I were buying new (which I am considering again) I wouldn't just consider which games I am playing today, I would make reasonable assumptions about what I might need in the next year or two.

And most gamers doubtless have better display HARDWARE than I do.

Overbuying is overbuying, period, and doing that is wasting money - I prefer not to do that.

1920x1080 at 60 Hz is the the ceiling for the display itself - not the GPU; therefore, trying to push the display beyond that performance-wise is pointless.

The objective - for any GPU or set of GPUs - is to hit the maximum capabilities of the display (or displays) as much as possible in the games the user plays - the number of GPUs, or even the number of displays, doesn't change the generic objective. (It changes the specifics, but not the generic objective itself.)

Keeping vertical sync on (which I do by default to keep tearing at a minimum in low-end gaming and applications) is the equivalent of setting a hard 60 fps cap - until recently (in fact, until GM107), the idea of a GPU relying on bus-power alone cracking that cap seemed silly in the extreme.

However, GTX750 in unpowered trim - either standard or Ti - has proven quite capable of doing exactly that in low and middle-end games; foreign territory for this end of things. It's one thing for folks that buy higher-end GPUs (and displays) to see this sort of performance - however, how common is it in terms of mainstream hardware?

That is why I asked the question (and directed it toward those that own the GPU) - it's not something that reviewers would notice, especially if they are somewhat spoiled by exposure to higher-end GPUs and/or displays.
 

wonderfield

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
7,396
1920x1080 at 60 Hz is the the ceiling for the display itself - not the GPU; therefore, trying to push the display beyond that performance-wise is pointless.
Not entirely pointless. A better-performing card will deliver more consistent frame times, as a general rule, even if those frames are still being displayed at the same rate.
 

ccityinstaller

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 23, 2007
Messages
4,241
Not entirely pointless. A better-performing card will deliver more consistent frame times, as a general rule, even if those frames are still being displayed at the same rate.

Exactly..I can't seem to understand how that appears to be lost on the OP..I use a heavily O/C'd 290 @ 1080P/60hz, for this EXACT REASON..Sure I can get 90~200FPS depending on the game, but what I care about is keeping my minimum FPS as close to 60 FPS...Reread and understand what we are trying to explain to you PG...

On a related note, I love the insane O/C'ing headroom these guys have..I have been wanting to buy one since the first reviews hit, even though I have no current need for it. The O/C'er in me is just super stoked at what they can churn out.
 

SystemCrash

Weaksauce
Joined
Aug 26, 2002
Messages
118
Got mine. PNY GeForce GT 750 Ti XLR8 OC

Goodies
Dirt cheap
Do not generate that much heat.
Not power hungry.

The Badies :
The fan on it cause some noise or vibration (more than my old Asus EAH4850)

The OK :
Good tempory solution to replace my 6 year old video cards.
 

revenant

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 10, 2005
Messages
14,705
I just picked up a GTX750ti (eVGA super clocked) and I am really impressed with this little card. Runs cool, uses very little power, and performs amazingly well. I got it for it's low power consumption and ability to use game stream with my Shield and it's running modded skyrim @ 1920x1200 (with 2x AA) very smoothly.. It's also quiet, all I can hear is my system fans which are I can barely hear unless I am trying to. It's one heck of a nice little card.
 

PGHammer

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
3,315
Exactly..I can't seem to understand how that appears to be lost on the OP..I use a heavily O/C'd 290 @ 1080P/60hz, for this EXACT REASON..Sure I can get 90~200FPS depending on the game, but what I care about is keeping my minimum FPS as close to 60 FPS...Reread and understand what we are trying to explain to you PG...

On a related note, I love the insane O/C'ing headroom these guys have..I have been wanting to buy one since the first reviews hit, even though I have no current need for it. The O/C'er in me is just super stoked at what they can churn out.

Not exactly lost - I am simply trying to do exactly that for as little outlay as possible.

Price is a factor - which I have stated repeatedly; GTX750 (in regular or Ti trim) is also the lowest priced of the GPUs I named. GTX660/Ti performance is known - however, it is still priced higher than GTX750Ti. (Power draw of GTX660/Ti is also known - it actually comes in just behind GTX750/Ti on the shortlist for that very reasoning.)

I'm looking for more data prior to pulling the trigger.
 

SGA76

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
1,955
I have a 60hz 24" Dell 1080p lcd.
I HAD an ATI 6670 I tried to run Skyrim with low settings at 1080 and would get stuttering and tearing out the wazoo.
I picked the Zotac GTX 750 ti as a replacement because it has a low power requirement, low noise level (stock cooling), and excellent 1080p performance on Skyrim (pretty much everything cranked to max). The stock fan is quiet, and I did pull it off and there's plenty of thermal paste there (removed mine went with ASC because I'm used to barely any being on my cards since most companies rarely put enough on) so you won't have to pull it apart and add reapply a larger amount.
I play Skyrim, 7 Days to Die, Payday 2, Space Engineers and Saints Row 4, all at max settings, no tearing or stuttering, everything runs silky smooth.
Even though a lot of people called me crazy for not going AMD Radeon for a few dollars more it worked out just fine for me since I didn't have to upgrade my 420 watt PSU as well to run it.
Really, really great budget performance card that doesn't produce much heat or suck too much juice. I'd imagine it's be perfect for a HTPC build since you can route your audio off of most sound cards to the GPU and put out full sound through the HDMI.

I'm going to go for an 8 core CPU AMD build later in the year with a beefier PSU and more RAM, I'll go with a better card then. I just didn't see the point in putting a $500 GPU into a PC I'm going to either wind up giving to my nephew or running as a 7 Days server when I don't have the PSU or monitor to use it.
Another nice feature is the GeForce Experience software. Pretty much any game I run pops into the list and it suggests and allows me to change my settings right there. It makes it pretty easy to get my best settings.
So I'll just say I'm VERY happy with mine and wouldn't hesitate to make the purchase again or use it in a mid ranged build with a 1080 monitor.
 
Last edited:

ep0x73

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 5, 2013
Messages
2,574
I only was using Intel until I bought a Gigabyte 750ti. Runs super cool and the games I play which are generally older [skyrim, oblivion, ME2, etc] I can put them all up to max at 1080P on a Benq 24" VA panel monitor and games look great.

Ticks me off about 3 weeks later the the same card is -$30 less with a 10MIR plus 3 free games.

I should have waited, I feel a bit ripped.
 
Top