GeForce GTX 760M vs Radeon Pro 455

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 455 with GeForce GTX 760M, including specs and performance data.

Pro 455
2016
2 GB GDDR5, 35 Watt
7.47
+78.7%

Pro 455 outperforms 760M by an impressive 79% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking592736
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency16.515.88
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameBaffinGK106
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date30 October 2016 (9 years ago)30 May 2013 (13 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 cores768768
Core clock speed855 MHz657 MHz
Boost clock speedno data657 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million2,540 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate41.0442.05
Floating-point processing power1.313 TFLOPS1.009 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs4864
L1 Cache192 KB64 KB
L2 Cache1024 KB256 KB

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 sizelargelarge
Bus supportno dataPCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data
SLI options-+

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataGDDR5
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1270 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth81.28 GB/s64.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
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.

FreeSync+-
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.

DirectX12 (12_0)12 API
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.1311.1.126
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.

Pro 455 7.47
+78.7%
GTX 760M 4.18

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.

Pro 455 3112
+78.9%
Samples: 2
GTX 760M 1740
Samples: 488

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Pro 455 5388
+59.9%
GTX 760M 3369

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Pro 455 16522
+18%
GTX 760M 14007

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Pro 455 3759
+65.5%
GTX 760M 2271

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Pro 455 23434
+47.4%
GTX 760M 15900

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:

900p65−70
+66.7%
39
−66.7%
Full HD35
−31.4%
46
+31.4%
4K22
+83.3%
12−14
−83.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+111%
18−20
−111%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Palworld 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 30−35
+94.1%
16−18
−94.1%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+111%
18−20
−111%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Fortnite 45−50
+84%
24−27
−84%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+70%
20−22
−70%
Palworld 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+58.8%
16−18
−58.8%
Valorant 75−80
+41.8%
55−60
−41.8%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 30−35
+94.1%
16−18
−94.1%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+111%
18−20
−111%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 145
+48%
98
−48%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Dota 2 67
+81.1%
35−40
−81.1%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Fortnite 45−50
+84%
24−27
−84%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+70%
20−22
−70%
Grand Theft Auto V 24
+84.6%
12−14
−84.6%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Palworld 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+58.8%
16−18
−58.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 25
+108%
12−14
−108%
Valorant 75−80
+41.8%
55−60
−41.8%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 30−35
+94.1%
16−18
−94.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Dota 2 62
+67.6%
35−40
−67.6%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+100%
12−14
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+70%
20−22
−70%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+58.8%
16−18
−58.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Valorant 75−80
+41.8%
55−60
−41.8%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 45−50
+84%
24−27
−84%
Palworld 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 55−60
+81.3%
30−35
−81.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+27.3%
30−35
−27.3%
Valorant 75−80
+87.8%
40−45
−87.8%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+114%
7−8
−114%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+80%
10−11
−80%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Palworld 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Palworld 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Valorant 30−35
+83.3%
18−20
−83.3%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 7−8 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 23
+64.3%
14−16
−64.3%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Palworld 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

This is how Pro 455 and GTX 760M compete in popular games:

  • Pro 455 is 67% faster in 900p
  • GTX 760M is 31% faster in 1080p
  • Pro 455 is 83% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 455 is 1400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Pro 455 surpassed GTX 760M in all 58 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.47 4.18
Recency 30 October 2016 30 May 2013
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 55 Watt

Pro 455 has a 79% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 57% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 455 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 760M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon Pro 455 is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 760M 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.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 18 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 455 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 117 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 760M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro 455 or GeForce GTX 760M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.