GeForce GT 335M vs GT 755M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 755M and GeForce GT 335M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 755M
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
4.38
+342%

GT 755M outperforms GT 335M by a whopping 342% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6711106
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency6.002.42
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGK107GT215
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date25 June 2013 (11 years ago)7 January 2010 (14 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 cores38472
Core clock speed980 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million727 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate31.3610.80
Floating-point processing power0.7526 TFLOPS0.1555 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data233
ROPs168
TMUs3224

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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0PCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Standard memory configurationGDDR5no data
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1350 MHzUp to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth86.4 GB/s25.6 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 outputsSingle Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
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++
HDCP content protection+-
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI+-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming+-

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
3D Vision / 3DTV Play+-
Power managementno data8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.52.1
OpenCL1.11.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
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. 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 4.38
+342%
GT 335M 0.99

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

GT 755M 1688
+342%
GT 335M 382

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.

GT 755M 12711
+309%
GT 335M 3106

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
+367%
12−14
−367%
Full HD23
+43.8%
16
−43.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Battlefield 5 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+123%
12−14
−123%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+37.5%
30−35
−37.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Battlefield 5 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+123%
12−14
−123%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+37.5%
30−35
−37.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+140%
5−6
−140%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Hitman 3 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
+123%
12−14
−123%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
+129%
7−8
−129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+37.5%
30−35
−37.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Hitman 3 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+575%
4−5
−575%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

This is how GT 755M and GT 335M compete in popular games:

  • GT 755M is 367% faster in 900p
  • GT 755M is 44% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 755M is 1000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GT 755M surpassed GT 335M in all 43 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.38 0.99
Recency 25 June 2013 7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 28 Watt

GT 755M has a 342.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 335M, on the other hand, has 78.6% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 755M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 335M 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
GeForce GT 755M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 335M
GeForce GT 335M

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 78 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 25 votes

Rate GeForce GT 335M 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.