Arc A380 vs GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition and Arc A380, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 755M Mac Edition
2013
1 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
2.16

Arc A380 outperforms GT 755M Mac Edition by a whopping 645% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking864332
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data43.69
Power efficiency3.1415.58
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGK107DG2-128
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date8 November 2013 (10 years ago)14 June 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores3841024
Core clock speed1085 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2050 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate34.72131.2
Floating-point processing power0.8333 TFLOPS4.198 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs3264
Tensor Coresno data128
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data222 mm
WidthMXM Module2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz1937 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s186.0 GB/s

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
CUDA3.0-

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 HD6−7
−717%
49
+717%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 61
+0%
61
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 50
+0%
50
+0%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Hitman 3 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 72
+0%
72
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 37
+0%
37
+0%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Hitman 3 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80
+0%
80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 29
+0%
29
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 31
+0%
31
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 57
+0%
57
+0%
Hitman 3 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 52
+0%
52
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 61
+0%
61
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 34
+0%
34
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 25
+0%
25
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Hitman 3 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hitman 3 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

This is how GT 755M Mac Edition and Arc A380 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A380 is 717% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.16 16.09
Recency 8 November 2013 14 June 2022
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 6 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 75 Watt

GT 755M Mac Edition has 50% lower power consumption.

Arc A380, on the other hand, has a 644.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A380 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition
GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition
Intel Arc A380
Arc A380

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.4 10 votes

Rate GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 791 vote

Rate Arc A380 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.