Nvidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti vs Radeon R7 265

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
T

ThatGuy2u2

Honorable
Jan 6, 2014
67
0
10,630
Both of these cards are roughly at the same price. I am using an amd 8320 and my current build(when i buy the parts) includes the 750 ti. but i did a little researching and alot shows that the r7 265 is better then the 750 ti.

i would be using my build for gaming and editing because im majoring in graphic arts/editing.

does it matter which one i use?

artical im referring to http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/radeon-r7-265-vs-geforce-gtx-750-ti-which-is-best-for-1080p-gaming

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/99dV23 - current build
 
Solution
Shneiky
OpenCL is not more powerful than CUDA. Trust me, I wish it was, but both do the same thing and the only difference is the implementation. Code with CUDA can perform exactly the same as code with OpenCL. The main difference is that nVidia has 1:32 floating point performance for the Maxwell parts, while Radeons are much superior with 1:7 (I believe it was). This is why Radeons perform anything that does not require CUDA, better than nVidia counterparts.

It all depends on your software. If it uses CUDA - you have only 1 choice. If it is OpenCL - then go Radeon. Premier Pro and After Effects are still CUDA dominated, with Premier Pro switching to OpenCL recently, but it has not completely. Sony Vegas is OpenCL based. Photoshop can run...
Sort by date Sort by votes
T

ThatGuy2u2

Honorable
Jan 6, 2014
67
0
10,630


its my freshmen year so i dont know what i'll be using, but another guy recommended the gtx 750 ti for editing
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
G

geofaysal

Reputable
Sep 12, 2014
26
0
4,540
Radeon R7 265 is much better because it has 256bit
u may check the following specs of both card which u can decide

Radeon R7 265 vs Nvidia GeForce GTX 750
Higher pixel rate 28.8 GPixel/s vs 16.32 GPixel/s More than 75% higher pixel rate
More render output processors 32 vs 16 Twice as many render output processors
Wider memory bus 256 bit vs 128 bit 2x wider memory bus
More shading units 1,024 vs 640 384 more shading units
More texture mapping units 64 vs 40 24 more texture mapping units
Higher clock speed 1,020 MHz vs 900 MHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 1,085 MHz vs 925 MHz More than 15% higher turbo clock speed
Higher texture rate 82.64 GTexel/s vs 57.6 GTexel/s Around 45% higher texture rate
Higher memory clock speed 1,502 MHz vs 1,400 MHz More than 5% higher memory clock speed

hopefullly this should help u
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A

anlebodys

Reputable
Sep 14, 2014
2
0
4,510
i think so,OpenCL is faster than CUDA, but not a lot of editors actually let you use OpenCL. thanks
2QF7mT
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Shneiky

Shneiky

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2011
2,323
1
20,960
OpenCL is not more powerful than CUDA. Trust me, I wish it was, but both do the same thing and the only difference is the implementation. Code with CUDA can perform exactly the same as code with OpenCL. The main difference is that nVidia has 1:32 floating point performance for the Maxwell parts, while Radeons are much superior with 1:7 (I believe it was). This is why Radeons perform anything that does not require CUDA, better than nVidia counterparts.

It all depends on your software. If it uses CUDA - you have only 1 choice. If it is OpenCL - then go Radeon. Premier Pro and After Effects are still CUDA dominated, with Premier Pro switching to OpenCL recently, but it has not completely. Sony Vegas is OpenCL based. Photoshop can run off both, with the Blur gallery being OpenCL based.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Solution
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom