FirePro M6000 vs GeForce GT 755M
Aggregated performance score
FirePro M6000 outperforms GeForce GT 755M by 8% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 628 | 611 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.85 | 1.38 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | N14P- | Heathrow |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 25 June 2013 (10 years ago) | 1 July 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Current price | $310 | $162 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
FirePro M6000 has 62% better value for money than GT 755M.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 43 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 31.36 | 32.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 752.6 gflops | 1,024 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 755M and FirePro M6000 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0 | n/a |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Form factor | no data | MXM-B |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI-ready | - | no data |
Memory
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5400 MHz | 4500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 86.4 GB/s | 72 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 |
| 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 | + | no data |
| HDCP content protection | + | no data |
| StereoOutput3D | no data | 1 |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | no data |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | no data |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
FirePro M6000 outperforms GeForce GT 755M by 8% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
FirePro M6000 outperforms GeForce GT 755M by 8% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GT 755M outperforms FirePro M6000 by 18% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GT 755M outperforms FirePro M6000 by 16% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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
−3.6%
| 58
+3.6%
|
| Full HD | 22
−90.9%
| 42
+90.9%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
This is how GT 755M and FirePro M6000 compete in popular games:
- FirePro M6000 is 3.6% faster than GT 755M in 900p
- FirePro M6000 is 90.9% faster than GT 755M in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the FirePro M6000 is 50% faster than the GT 755M.
All in all, in popular games:
- FirePro M6000 is ahead in 38 tests (63%)
- there's a draw in 22 tests (37%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 4.36 | 4.70 |
| Recency | 25 June 2013 | 1 July 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 43 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 755M and FirePro M6000.
Be aware that GeForce GT 755M is a notebook graphics card while FirePro M6000 is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
