Radeon RX 7800 XT vs GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition with Radeon RX 7800 XT, including specs and performance data.
7800 XT outperforms 755M Mac Edition by a whopping 2856% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 955 | 47 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 69.98 |
| Power efficiency | 3.10 | 17.34 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 8 November 2013 (12 years ago) | 25 August 2023 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | 1085 MHz | 1295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2430 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 263 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 34.72 | 583.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8333 TFLOPS | 37.32 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 96 |
| TMUs | 32 | 240 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 60 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 960 KB |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 64 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 2438 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 624.1 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 7−8
−96.7%
| 214 |
| 1440p | 4−5
−96.7%
| 123 |
| 4K | 2−3 | 72
+3500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.33 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.06 |
| 4K | no data | 6.93 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 324 | 324 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 351 | 351 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 248 | 248 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 272 | 272 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 243 | 243 |
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 355 | 355 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 196 | 196 |
| Far Cry 5 | 204 | 204 |
| Fortnite | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 278 | 278 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 145 | 145 |
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 283 | 283 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 163 | 163 |
| Far Cry 5 | 196 | 196 |
| Fortnite | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 261 | 261 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 178 | 178 |
| Metro Exodus | 172 | 172 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 366 | 366 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 150 | 150 |
| Far Cry 5 | 182 | 182 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 222 | 222 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 200 | 200 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 270−280 | 270−280 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 175 | 175 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 400−450 | 400−450 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 140 | 140 |
| Metro Exodus | 106 | 106 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 350−400 | 350−400 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 99 | 99 |
| Far Cry 5 | 176 | 176 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 202 | 202 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 147 | 147 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160 | 150−160 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 42 | 42 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 152 | 152 |
| Metro Exodus | 63 | 63 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 118 | 118 |
| Valorant | 300−350 | 300−350 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80 | 75−80 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45 | 45 |
| Far Cry 5 | 104 | 104 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 164 | 164 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 95−100 | 95−100 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 75−80 | 75−80 |
This is how GT 755M Mac Edition and RX 7800 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 7800 XT is 2957% faster in 1080p
- RX 7800 XT is 2975% faster in 1440p
- RX 7800 XT is 3500% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 59 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.98 | 58.52 |
| Recency | 8 November 2013 | 25 August 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 263 Watt |
GT 755M Mac Edition has 81% lower power consumption.
RX 7800 XT, on the other hand, has a 2856% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 82% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 7800 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 7800 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
