OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC 4GB review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£130VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):60 W

ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC 4GB Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 4 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC 4GB
6.3/10

Overall score

Score
6.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 84% of models
Score components

40%

3.5

Technical score

25%

8.3

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

9.6

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 84% of graphics cards
7.4

Value for money

Value for money
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

▼Worse than 54%
3.5

Technical score

Technical score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

1.7

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.5

Design

4%

5.3

Connectivity

▼Worse than 98%
8.3

Reviews score

Reviews score
8.3/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▲ Better than 77% of models

80%

8.4

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▲Better than 77%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • asus-strix-geforce-gtx-750-ti-oc-4gb
asus-strix-geforce-gtx-750-ti-oc-4gb
Where to buy
    N/A~ £130
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC 4GB

Based on 2 · 2

Reviewers like its quiet fans and hassle-free power connection, with hardly any complaints.
Praised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC 4GB

Based on 203 owners sharing their experience in online comments

81%positive14%mixed5%negative

Owners value its capable, low-power gaming, while demanding newer titles and limited VRAM force settings compromises.

What owners dislike

  • Newer demanding games, such as Fallout 4 and Cyberpunk 2077, need low or medium settings and resolution cuts to hold playable frame rates.21
  • Frame rates drop to choppy levels in some games, such as Overwatch, with heavy stutter or freezes reported in demanding titles even on low settings.11
  • The 2GB and 1GB versions run out of video memory in demanding games, forcing lower textures and settings; the 1GB Zotac model is especially limited.5

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC 4GB

Technical score
Technical score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

44%

1.6

Performance

24%

1.7

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

6.3

Features

5%

8.5

Design

4%

5.3

Connectivity

3.5
Reviews score
8.3
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.4/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 54% of models
Score components:

70%

6.3

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

7.4
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,308 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 1,308 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 97.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
3,901 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 3,901 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 95% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
1,742 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 1,742 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 95.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
1.44 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.44 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 95.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
86.4 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 86.4 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 96.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
5,400 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 5,400 MHz, which is slower than that of 95.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x16
This graphics card uses x16 PCIe lanes, which is more than 24.1% of graphics cards and equal to 75.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
11.2
This graphics card supports DirectX 11.2, which is older than on 98.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.8% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
3
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 3 displays, which is fewer than 91% of graphics cards and equal to 6.6% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
0
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 0 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 96.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
60 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 60 W, which is lower than that of 95.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
75 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 75 W under peak load, which is lower than 91.8% of graphics cards and equal to 2.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
300 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 300 W PSU, which is lower than that of 94% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
60 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 60 W, which is lower than that of 96.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
60 W
Show more
What reviewers say
Size
196x 122x 38 mm
Length
196 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 196 mm long, which is shorter than 91.2% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Height
122 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 122 mm tall, which is shorter than 55.9% of graphics cards and equal in height to 0.5% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
725 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 725 g, which is lighter than 76.3% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC 4GB vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 72.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (60 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    60 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 86.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (196 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    196 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 77% of models

    80%

    8.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • 72.7% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (60 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    60 W vs 220 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 23.1% higher sentiment score
    9.6 vs 7.8
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 15.3% higher review score
    Reviews score
    8.3/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▲ Better than 77% of models

    80%

    8.4

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    2 reviews: 1 with a printed score, 1 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    8.3 vs 7.2
  • 23.1% higher sentiment score
    9.6 vs 7.8
  • 4x cheaper
    ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC 4GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£130 vs £520).
    £130 vs £520
  • 49.7% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (148 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    148 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 72.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (60 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    60 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 72.7% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (60 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    60 W vs 220 W
  • 12 °C lower idle temperature
    This graphics card has a lower idle temperature than the average graphics card (25 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    25 °C vs 37 °C
  • 65.9% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 50% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (6 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    6 W vs 12 W
  • 86.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (196 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    196 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 52% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,202 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,202 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 35 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (5 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    5 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 144 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (40 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    40 vs 184
  • 41.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,124 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,124 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 52% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,202 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,202 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 35 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (5 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    5 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 144 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (40 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    40 vs 184
  • 41.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,124 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,124 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 88.1% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (45 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    45 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 88.9% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (18 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    17.98 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 48 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (16 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    16 vs 64
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 93.6% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (1.4 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    1.44 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 8 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2015 vs 2023).
    February 2015
    2015 vs 2023
  • 82.8% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (3,901 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    3,901 points vs 22,638 points
  • 91.1% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1,308 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,308 points vs 14,779 points
  • 85.6% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (1,742 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    1,742 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 99.6% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    0.11 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 89.6% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.05 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 3,712 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (640 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    640 vs 4,352
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 80.7% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (86.4 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    86.4 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 71.6% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (5,400 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    5,400 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • 22.9% slower VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a lower VRAM clock than the average graphics card (1,350 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    1,350 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 50% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (64 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    64 KB vs 128 KB
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (11.2 vs 12 Ultimate).
    11.2 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5.1 vs 6.8).
    5.1 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 91.8% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (1,870 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    1,870 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1a).
    1.4a vs 2.1a
  • 3 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (0 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    0 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (3 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    3 vs 4
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (1 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    1 vs 6
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 75% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 1 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 4.6 dB noisier under load
    This graphics card has a higher load noise level than the average graphics card (40 dB vs 35.4 dB). The average graphics card has a load noise level of 35.4 dB.
    40 dB vs 35.4 dB
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

9.0
MrTechcat
≈ estimated
07/04/2015
Hands-on review · fan noise and performance tests
Verdict
ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC 4GB is almost silent in use, with performance close to the older GTX 660 and much lower noise.
Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

9.0
geeknetic.es
✓ explicit
16/09/2014
Hands-on test · Compact card
Verdict
ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti is a quiet, compact card for 1080p gaming and small home theatre PCs, powered entirely by the PCI Express slot.
8.0
redusers.com
≈ estimated
14/10/2015
Hands-on test · Budget gaming card
Verdict
ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC is a budget card that runs modern games at 1080p with medium detail and suits small PCs.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC 4GB

  • Extremely quiet operation due to 0dB fan technology that stops fans during low loads.
  • Highly power-efficient Maxwell architecture with a low 60W-75W TDP.
  • Does not require a 6-pin external power connector, making it an easy upgrade for older systems with basic PSUs.
  • Excellent cooling performance, often keeping the GPU under 60°C even when overclocked.
  • Strong factory overclock and additional manual overclocking headroom.
  • High build quality using premium Super Alloy Power components for increased lifespan.

What customers don't like about ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC 4GB

  • Performance is insufficient for modern AAA titles, requiring low settings at 1080p for playable frame rates.
  • Obsolete for high-end gaming in the mid-2020s, with used market prices often not reflecting its age.
  • Lack of SLI support prevents multi-GPU configurations.
  • Bulky dual-slot cooler may be difficult to fit in some ultra-compact Small Form Factor (SFF) cases.
  • Limited display connectivity, with some users missing a second DVI port compared to reference designs.

Verdict

The Asus Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC 4GB is an entry-level graphics card based on the 28nm Maxwell architecture, specifically the GM107 GPU with 640 CUDA cores. This factory-overclocked edition features a base clock of 1124 MHz and a boost clock of 1202 MHz, paired with 4GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with a 5.4 Gbps effective clock speed. Its primary characteristics include the DirectCU II cooling system with 0dB silent-fan technology, which allows the dual fans to remain completely still during light loads. Main pros include exceptional power efficiency with a low 60W TDP that requires no external PCIe power connectors, silent operation, and a generous factory overclock. However, cons include its limited bandwidth (86.4 GB/s) which hinders high-resolution performance, and its dated architecture that struggles to run modern AAA titles at high settings compared to newer entry-level successors.

Compare ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC 4GB with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of ASUS Strix GeForce GTX 750 Ti OC 4GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found