Radeon HD 6755G2 vs GeForce GT 820M

Place in the ranking	1008	996
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	6.60	no data
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Terascale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	GF117	no data
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	27 November 2013 (11 years ago)	14 June 2011 (13 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 cores	96	880
Core clock speed	775 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	585 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	12.40	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.2976 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	8	no data
TMUs	16	no data

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	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	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 type	DDR3	no data
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	no data
Memory bus width	64 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	no data
Shared memory	no data	-

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

no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.6	no data
OpenCL	1.1	no data
Vulkan	N/A	-
CUDA	2.1	-

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	18−20 −11.1%	20 +11.1%
Full HD	12−14 −16.7%	14 +16.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Fortnite	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
World of Tanks	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
World of Tanks	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Valorant	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Valorant	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how GT 820M and HD 6755G2 compete in popular games:

HD 6755G2 is 11% faster in 900p
HD 6755G2 is 17% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 42 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.38	1.41
Recency	27 November 2013	14 June 2011
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm

GT 820M has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

HD 6755G2, on the other hand, has a 2.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 820M and Radeon HD 6755G2.

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.

GeForce GT 820M

Radeon HD 6755G2

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

NVIDIA RTX 5060 Mobile

Graphics (Ryzen 9000)

Qualcomm X Adreno X1-85 4.6 TFLOPS

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.3 127 votes

Rate GeForce GT 820M on a scale of 1 to 5:

4.8 23 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6755G2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 820M or Radeon HD 6755G2, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.