FireStream 9370 vs GeForce GT 750M
In this comparison between FireStream 9370 and GeForce GT 750M you will find out which graphics card performs better in today's games. Bear in mind that third-party versions may have more efficient cooling and higher clock speeds. This will increase cards' performance, though not by much. In addition to raw power you should also take into account the dimensions. Thicker models simply will not fit into a small mini-ITX case. The resolution of your monitor also affects the choice, since 4K gameplay requires a more powerful GPU. And don't overspend on the graphics card. Other parts of your build may also need to be upgraded, save some money for the CPU or power supply. For some people FireStream 9370 will be the best choice, for others GeForce GT 750M will be their preference. Study the comparison tables below and make your choice.
FireStream 9370
GeForce GT 750M is a Laptop Graphics Card
Note: GeForce GT 750M is only used in laptop graphics. It has lower GPU clock speed compared to the desktop variant, which results in lower power consumption, but also 10-30% lower gaming performance. Check available laptop models with GeForce GT 750M here:
Main Specs
FireStream 9370 | GeForce GT 750M | |
Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 50 Watt |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | |
Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
Display Connectors | 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
Check Price |
- FireStream 9370 has 350% more power consumption, than GeForce GT 750M.
- FireStream 9370 is connected by PCIe 2.0 x16, and GeForce GT 750M uses PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.
- FireStream 9370 and GeForce GT 750M have maximum RAM of 4 GB.
- FireStream 9370 is used in Desktops, and GeForce GT 750M - in Laptops.
- FireStream 9370 is build with TeraScale 2 architecture, and GeForce GT 750M - with Kepler.
- Core clock speed of GeForce GT 750M is 142 MHz higher, than FireStream 9370.
- FireStream 9370 is manufactured by 40 nm process technology, and GeForce GT 750M - by 28 nm process technology.
- Memory clock speed of FireStream 9370 is 2600 MHz higher, than GeForce GT 750M.
Game benchmarks
high / 1080p | 12−14 | 5−6 |
ultra / 1080p | 7−8 | 2−3 |
QHD / 1440p | 2−3 | 2−3 |
low / 720p | 27−30 | 16−18 |
medium / 1080p | 16−18 | 7−8 |
The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9370 in Assassin's Creed Odyssey is 85% more, than GeForce GT 750M. | ||
high / 1080p | 21−24 | 10−11 |
ultra / 1080p | 18−20 | 8−9 |
QHD / 1440p | 4−5 | 0−1 |
low / 720p | 45−50 | 24−27 |
medium / 1080p | 21−24 | 10−12 |
The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9370 in Battlefield 5 is 107% more, than GeForce GT 750M. | ||
low / 768p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
high / 1080p | − | 40−45 |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | 0−1 |
FireStream 9370 and GeForce GT 750M have the same average FPS in Call of Duty: Warzone. | ||
low / 768p | 190−200 | 130−140 |
medium / 768p | 160−170 | 100−110 |
ultra / 1080p | 85−90 | 50−55 |
QHD / 1440p | 45−50 | 27−30 |
4K / 2160p | 30−33 | 12−14 |
high / 768p | 120−130 | 80−85 |
The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9370 in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive is 56% more, than GeForce GT 750M. | ||
low / 768p | 55−60 | 50−55 |
ultra / 1080p | 35−40 | 18−20 |
medium / 1080p | 45−50 | 45−50 |
The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9370 in Cyberpunk 2077 is 20% more, than GeForce GT 750M. | ||
low / 768p | 100−110 | 80−85 |
medium / 768p | 85−90 | 55−60 |
ultra / 1080p | 55−60 | 30−35 |
The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9370 in Dota 2 is 45% more, than GeForce GT 750M. | ||
high / 1080p | 14−16 | 7−8 |
ultra / 1080p | 14−16 | 5−6 |
4K / 2160p | 5−6 | 5−6 |
low / 720p | 30−35 | 18−20 |
medium / 1080p | 16−18 | 8−9 |
The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9370 in Far Cry 5 is 88% more, than GeForce GT 750M. | ||
high / 1080p | 21−24 | 7−8 |
ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | 0−1 |
QHD / 1440p | 16−18 | 0−1 |
low / 720p | 85−90 | 60−65 |
medium / 1080p | 45−50 | 18−20 |
The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9370 in Fortnite is 79% more, than GeForce GT 750M. | ||
high / 1080p | 21−24 | 10−11 |
ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | − |
QHD / 1440p | 7−8 | − |
4K / 2160p | − | 8−9 |
low / 720p | 45−50 | 21−24 |
medium / 1080p | 24−27 | 12−14 |
The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9370 in Forza Horizon 4 is 106% more, than GeForce GT 750M. | ||
low / 768p | 75−80 | 50−55 |
medium / 768p | 65−70 | − |
high / 1080p | 24−27 | 10−12 |
ultra / 1080p | 10−11 | 5−6 |
QHD / 1440p | 1−2 | − |
medium / 720p | − | 45−50 |
The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9370 in Grand Theft Auto V is 60% more, than GeForce GT 750M. | ||
high / 1080p | 8−9 | 3−4 |
ultra / 1080p | 6−7 | 1−2 |
4K / 2160p | 2−3 | − |
low / 720p | 24−27 | 10−11 |
medium / 1080p | 10−12 | 5−6 |
The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9370 in Metro Exodus is 140% more, than GeForce GT 750M. | ||
low / 768p | 100−110 | 90−95 |
ultra / 1080p | 95−100 | 80−85 |
medium / 1080p | 100−110 | − |
The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9370 in Minecraft is 16% more, than GeForce GT 750M. | ||
high / 1080p | 21−24 | 6−7 |
ultra / 1080p | 16−18 | 2−3 |
4K / 2160p | − | 0−1 |
low / 720p | 50−55 | 27−30 |
medium / 1080p | 21−24 | 10−11 |
The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9370 in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS is 133% more, than GeForce GT 750M. | ||
high / 1080p | 12−14 | − |
ultra / 1080p | 9−10 | − |
QHD / 1440p | 0−1 | − |
low / 720p | 24−27 | 10−11 |
medium / 1080p | 14−16 | 9−10 |
The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9370 in Red Dead Redemption 2 is 100% more, than GeForce GT 750M. | ||
low / 768p | 45−50 | 21−24 |
medium / 768p | 27−30 | 14−16 |
high / 1080p | 16−18 | 6−7 |
ultra / 1080p | 9−10 | 4−5 |
4K / 2160p | 7−8 | 3−4 |
The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9370 in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is 120% more, than GeForce GT 750M. | ||
low / 768p | 95−100 | 75−80 |
medium / 768p | 55−60 | 40−45 |
ultra / 1080p | 30−35 | 18−20 |
high / 768p | 50−55 | 30−35 |
The average gaming FPS of FireStream 9370 in World of Tanks is 42% more, than GeForce GT 750M. |
Full Specs
FireStream 9370 | GeForce GT 750M | |
Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Kepler |
Code name | Cypress | N14P-GT |
Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Release date | 23 June 2010 | 1 April 2013 |
Pipelines | 1600 | 384 |
Core clock speed | 825 MHz | 967 MHz |
Boost Clock | 967 MHz | |
Transistor count | 2,154 million | 1,270 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
Texture fill rate | 66.00 | 30.94 |
Floating-point performance | 2,640.0 gflops | 742.7 gflops |
Length | 267 mm | |
Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 4600 MHz | 2000 - 5000 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 147.2 GB/s | 64.19 GB/s |
Shared memory | - | |
DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 API |
Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
CUDA | + | |
Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
HDMI | + | |
Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256) | 27 Mh/s | |
Laptop size | medium sized | |
Standard memory configuration | DDR3/GDDR5 | |
eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | |
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | |
HDCP content protection | + | |
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | |
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | |
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | |
Optimus | + | |
Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | |
3D Vision / 3DTV Play | + | |
Check Price |