GeForce 8800 GT vs GT 755M SLI

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 755M SLI with GeForce 8800 GT, including specs and performance data.

GT 755M SLI
2013
2x 2 GB GDDR5, 2 Watt
8.70
+613%

GT 755M SLI outperforms 8800 GT by a whopping 613% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4951051
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.03
Power efficiency5.990.67
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameN14P-?G92
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 November 2013 (11 years ago)29 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$349

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 cores768112
Core clock speed980 MHz600 MHz
Number of transistors2x 1300 Million754 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)2x ~50 Watt105 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rateno data33.60
Floating-point processing powerno data0.336 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data56

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data229 mm
Heightno dataSingle Slot
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin
SLI options-2-way

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2x 2 GB512 MB
Memory bus width2x 128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed5400 MHz900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data57.6 GB/s
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 Connectorsno dataDual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor supportno data+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataS/PDIF

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR)no data128bit

API compatibility

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

DirectX1111.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data2.1
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA++

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 HD36
+620%
5−6
−620%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data69.80

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Elden Ring 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+775%
4−5
−775%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
Valorant 30−35
+675%
4−5
−675%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Dota 2 30−35
+675%
4−5
−675%
Elden Ring 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+640%
5−6
−640%
Fortnite 50−55
+629%
7−8
−629%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+775%
4−5
−775%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+675%
4−5
−675%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+656%
9−10
−656%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+700%
3−4
−700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+767%
3−4
−767%
Valorant 30−35
+675%
4−5
−675%
World of Tanks 120−130
+617%
18−20
−617%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+833%
3−4
−833%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Dota 2 30−35
+675%
4−5
−675%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+640%
5−6
−640%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+775%
4−5
−775%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+656%
9−10
−656%
Valorant 30−35
+675%
4−5
−675%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Elden Ring 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+740%
5−6
−740%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1
World of Tanks 60−65
+688%
8−9
−688%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Valorant 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Elden Ring 5−6 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+733%
3−4
−733%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Fortnite 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Valorant 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

This is how GT 755M SLI and 8800 GT compete in popular games:

  • GT 755M SLI is 620% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.70 1.22
Recency 1 November 2013 29 October 2007
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 2 Watt 105 Watt

GT 755M SLI has a 613.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 5150% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 755M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8800 GT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 755M SLI is a notebook card while GeForce 8800 GT is a desktop one.


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 SLI
GeForce GT 755M SLI
NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT
GeForce 8800 GT

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.


4.4 21 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 617 votes

Rate GeForce 8800 GT 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.