FirePro W2100 vs GeForce GT 755M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

GT 755M
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
4.37
+86.8%

GeForce GT 755M outperforms FirePro W2100 by an impressive 87% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking632812
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.890.42
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN (2011−2017)
GPU code nameN14P-Mars
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date25 June 2013 (11 years ago)2 October 2015 (8 years ago)
Current price$310 $123

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 755M has 112% better value for money than FirePro W2100.

Detailed specifications

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 cores384320
Core clock speed980 MHz680 MHz
Boost clock speedno data680 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt26 Watt
Texture fill rate31.3613.60
Floating-point performance752.6 gflops435.2 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GT 755M and FirePro W2100 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0PCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Widthno data1-slot
Form factorno datalow profile / half length
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
SLI-ready-no data

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Standard memory configurationGDDR5no data
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed5400 MHz1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth86.4 GB/s28.8 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 outputs2x DisplayPort
eDP 1.2 signal supportUp to 3840x2160no data
LVDS signal supportUp to 1920x1200no data
VGA аnalog display supportUp to 2048x1536no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportUp to 3840x2160no data
HDMI+no data
HDCP content protection+no data
DisplayPort countno data2
Dual-link DVI supportno data1
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI+no data
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming+no data

Supported technologies

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

AppAccelerationno data+
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 compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.11.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
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.

GT 755M 4.37
+86.8%
FirePro W2100 2.34

GeForce GT 755M outperforms FirePro W2100 by 87% based on our aggregate 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%

GT 755M 1688
+86.9%
FirePro W2100 903

GeForce GT 755M outperforms FirePro W2100 by 87% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GT 755M 2106
+94.1%
FirePro W2100 1085

GeForce GT 755M outperforms FirePro W2100 by 94% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GT 755M 14967
+92.6%
FirePro W2100 7771

GeForce GT 755M outperforms FirePro W2100 by 93% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

GT 755M 4970
+34.1%
FirePro W2100 3705

GeForce GT 755M outperforms FirePro W2100 by 34% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GT 755M 28
+86.6%
FirePro W2100 15

GeForce GT 755M outperforms FirePro W2100 by 87% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

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:

900p56
+107%
27−30
−107%
Full HD21
+110%
10
−110%
4K3−4
+50%
2
−50%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Hitman 3 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+35.3%
16−18
−35.3%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+33.3%
14−16
−33.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 10−11
+233%
3−4
−233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+100%
6−7
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Hitman 3 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+35.3%
16−18
−35.3%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+33.3%
14−16
−33.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+122%
9−10
−122%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+35.3%
16−18
−35.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 20−22
+33.3%
14−16
−33.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Hitman 3 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

This is how GT 755M and FirePro W2100 compete in popular games:

  • GT 755M is 107% faster in 900p
  • GT 755M is 110% faster in 1080p
  • GT 755M is 50% faster in 4K

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 755M is 233% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GT 755M surpassed FirePro W2100 in all 56 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.37 2.34
Recency 25 June 2013 2 October 2015
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 26 Watt

The GeForce GT 755M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W2100 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 755M is a notebook card while FirePro W2100 is a workstation 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
GeForce GT 755M
AMD FirePro W2100
FirePro W2100

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.


3.3 69 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 92 votes

Rate FirePro W2100 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.