GeForce GTX 1630 vs GT 755M

Place in performance ranking	665	388
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	N14P-	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	25 June 2013 (11 years ago)	28 June 2022 (2 years ago)

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 cores	384	512
Core clock speed	980 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	75 Watt
Texture fill rate	31.36	57.12
Floating-point performance	0.7526 gflops	1.828 gflops

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 size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	no data	145 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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 type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Standard memory configuration	GDDR5	no data
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	5400 MHz	12 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	86.4 GB/s	96 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 Connectors	No outputs	1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
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	+	+
HDCP content protection	+	-
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	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.6
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
CUDA	+	7.5

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 4.39

GTX 1630 12.91
+194%

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.

GT 755M 1695

GTX 1630 4983
+194%

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 −186%	160−170 +186%
Full HD	23 −183%	65−70 +183%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

8−9
−163%

21−24

+163%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −192%	35−40 +192%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Battlefield 5	10−11 −170%	27−30 +170%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −170%	27−30 +170%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −163%	21−24 +163%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −167%	24−27 +167%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −192%	35−40 +192%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −178%	75−80 +178%
Hitman 3	10−11 −170%	27−30 +170%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −193%	85−90 +193%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −167%	24−27 +167%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 −173%	30−33 +173%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −181%	45−50 +181%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −173%	120−130 +173%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −192%	35−40 +192%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Battlefield 5	10−11 −170%	27−30 +170%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −170%	27−30 +170%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −163%	21−24 +163%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −167%	24−27 +167%
Far Cry New Dawn	12−14 −192%	35−40 +192%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −178%	75−80 +178%
Hitman 3	10−11 −170%	27−30 +170%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −193%	85−90 +193%
Metro Exodus	9−10 −167%	24−27 +167%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 −173%	30−33 +173%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −181%	45−50 +181%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −165%	45−50 +165%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −173%	120−130 +173%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 −192%	35−40 +192%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10−11 −170%	27−30 +170%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 −163%	21−24 +163%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −167%	24−27 +167%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −178%	75−80 +178%
Hitman 3	10−11 −170%	27−30 +170%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −193%	85−90 +193%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 −181%	45−50 +181%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −165%	45−50 +165%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 −173%	120−130 +173%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

−173%

30−33
+173%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9 −163%	21−24 +163%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −180%	14−16 +180%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Hitman 3	9−10 −167%	24−27 +167%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −170%	27−30 +170%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −178%	75−80 +178%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
−163%

21−24

+163%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Hitman 3	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
−180%

14−16

+180%

This is how GT 755M and GTX 1630 compete in popular games:

GTX 1630 is 186% faster in 900p
GTX 1630 is 183% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.39	12.91
Recency	25 June 2013	28 June 2022
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	75 Watt

GT 755M has 50% lower power consumption.

GTX 1630, on the other hand, has a 194.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1630 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 755M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 755M is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 1630 is a desktop one.

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