Radeon E6760 vs GeForce GT 755M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 755M with Radeon E6760, including specs and performance data.
GT 755M outperforms E6760 by an impressive 97% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 707 | 900 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.13 |
| Power efficiency | 6.27 | 3.54 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | Turks |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 June 2013 (12 years ago) | 2 May 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $239.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 cores | 384 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 716 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 31.36 | 14.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7526 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 24 |
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 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1350 MHz | 3200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 86.4 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | no data |
| 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 11.0 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | - |
| 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.
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.
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
+107%
| 27−30
−107%
|
| Full HD | 22
+120%
| 10−12
−120%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 24.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+104%
|
27−30
−104%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+111%
|
35−40
−111%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+106%
|
18−20
−106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+104%
|
27−30
−104%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+106%
|
18−20
−106%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+104%
|
27−30
−104%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+100%
|
16−18
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+106%
|
16−18
−106%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+110%
|
21−24
−110%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| God of War | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| God of War | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how GT 755M and Radeon E6760 compete in popular games:
- GT 755M is 107% faster in 900p
- GT 755M is 120% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.11 | 2.09 |
| Recency | 25 June 2013 | 2 May 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 45 Watt |
GT 755M has a 96.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
Radeon E6760, on the other hand, has 11.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 755M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon E6760 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 755M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon E6760 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
