Arc Pro A30M vs GeForce GT 755M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 755M with Arc Pro A30M, including specs and performance data.
Pro A30M outperforms 755M by a whopping 254% 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 | 739 | 403 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.42 | 21.77 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Xe-HPG (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | DG2-128 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 25 June 2013 (13 years ago) | 8 August 2022 (4 years ago) |
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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 31.36 | 128.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7526 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 32 KB | 1.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 4 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1350 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 86.4 GB/s | 128.0 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP content protection | + | - |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | - |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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:
| 900p | 56
−239%
| 190−200
+239%
|
| Full HD | 22
−241%
| 75−80
+241%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−339%
|
75−80
+339%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
−230%
|
30−35
+230%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−265%
|
60−65
+265%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−339%
|
75−80
+339%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−292%
|
45−50
+292%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−238%
|
80−85
+238%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−200%
|
60−65
+200%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
−230%
|
30−35
+230%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−206%
|
50−55
+206%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−116%
|
110−120
+116%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−265%
|
60−65
+265%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
−339%
|
75−80
+339%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−161%
|
190−200
+161%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−251%
|
130−140
+251%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−292%
|
45−50
+292%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
−238%
|
80−85
+238%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−200%
|
60−65
+200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−308%
|
50−55
+308%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
−230%
|
30−35
+230%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−206%
|
50−55
+206%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−217%
|
35−40
+217%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−116%
|
110−120
+116%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−265%
|
60−65
+265%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−251%
|
130−140
+251%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−292%
|
45−50
+292%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−200%
|
60−65
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−206%
|
50−55
+206%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−217%
|
35−40
+217%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−245%
|
190−200
+245%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
−238%
|
80−85
+238%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
−230%
|
30−35
+230%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−250%
|
27−30
+250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−231%
|
100−110
+231%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−1000%
|
21−24
+1000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−233%
|
110−120
+233%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−229%
|
130−140
+229%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−343%
|
30−35
+343%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−233%
|
20−22
+233%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−300%
|
30−35
+300%
|
| Palworld | 6−7
−233%
|
20−22
+233%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−62.5%
|
24−27
+62.5%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−283%
|
65−70
+283%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 20−22 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−221%
|
45−50
+221%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−400%
|
24−27
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Palworld | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
This is how GT 755M and Arc Pro A30M compete in popular games:
- Arc Pro A30M is 239% faster in 900p
- Arc Pro A30M is 241% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc Pro A30M is 3900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Arc Pro A30M performs better in 53 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.15 | 14.69 |
| Recency | 25 June 2013 | 8 August 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
Arc Pro A30M has a 254% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 367% more advanced lithography process.
The Arc Pro A30M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 755M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 755M is a notebook graphics card while Arc Pro A30M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
