Radeon Vega 7 vs GeForce GT 555M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 555M and Radeon Vega 7, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Vega 7 outperforms GT 555M by a whopping 340% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 944 | 543 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 10 |
| Power efficiency | 3.33 | 11.40 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 October 2011 (13 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (3 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | Up to 144 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | Up to 753 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 753 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.60 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3024 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 28 |
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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| 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 type | DDR3\DDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | Up to 192 bit/128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1569 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 50.2 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
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.
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 | 19
−321%
| 80−85
+321%
|
| Full HD | 25
+4.2%
| 24
−4.2%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
−400%
| 25
+400%
|
| 4K | 4−5
−350%
| 18
+350%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−350%
|
18
+350%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−833%
|
28
+833%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−250%
|
14
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1900%
|
20
+1900%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−950%
|
63
+950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−363%
|
37
+363%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−150%
|
24−27
+150%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−108%
|
75−80
+108%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−667%
|
23
+667%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−70.6%
|
58
+70.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10
+150%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−321%
|
80−85
+321%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18
+1700%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−350%
|
27
+350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−338%
|
35
+338%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−750%
|
17
+750%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−130%
|
23
+130%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−217%
|
19
+217%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−103%
|
73
+103%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−600%
|
21
+600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−125%
|
9
+125%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−321%
|
80−85
+321%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−238%
|
27
+238%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12
+1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−150%
|
24−27
+150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−117%
|
13
+117%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+44%
|
25
−44%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
−133%
|
14
+133%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−440%
|
50−55
+440%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−255%
|
35−40
+255%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−380%
|
48
+380%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−325%
|
16−18
+325%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−213%
|
25
+213%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how GT 555M and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Vega 7 is 321% faster in 900p
- GT 555M is 4% faster in 1080p
- Vega 7 is 400% faster in 1440p
- Vega 7 is 350% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 555M is 44% faster.
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Vega 7 is 1900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 555M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Vega 7 is ahead in 50 tests (81%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (18%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.70 | 7.48 |
| Recency | 27 October 2011 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 45 Watt |
GT 555M has 28.6% lower power consumption.
Vega 7, on the other hand, has a 340% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 555M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
