GT 755M vs GTX 560M

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

GTX 560M
3.20

GT 755M outperforms GTX 560M by 36% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking704627
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money0.110.84
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameN12E-GSN14P-
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date30 May 2011 (12 years old)25 June 2013 (10 years old)
Current price$1198 $310
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 755M has 664% better value for money than GTX 560M.

Technical specs

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 cores192384
CUDA cores192no data
Core clock speed775 MHz980 MHz
Number of transistors1,170 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate24.8 billion/sec31.36
Floating-point performance595.2 gflops752.6 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 560M and GeForce GT 755M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. 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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data
SLI-readyno data-
SLI options2-wayno data

Memory

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1536 MB4 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataGDDR5
Memory bus widthUp to 192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz5400 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 60 GB/s86.4 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

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 outputsNo outputs
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMIno data+
HDCP content protectionno data+
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMIno data+
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreamingno data+

Technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray+no data
Blu-Ray 3D Supportno data+
3D Gaming+no data
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoderno data+
Optimus++
3D Vision / 3DTV Playno data+

API support

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

DirectX12 API12 API
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/A1.1.126
CUDA++

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.

GTX 560M 3.20
GT 755M 4.36
+36.3%

GT 755M outperforms GTX 560M by 36% in our combined 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%

GTX 560M 1241
GT 755M 1691
+36.3%

GT 755M outperforms GTX 560M by 36% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 560M 9300
GT 755M 12711
+36.7%

GT 755M outperforms GTX 560M by 37% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 560M 1820
GT 755M 2801
+53.9%

GT 755M outperforms GTX 560M by 54% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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%

GTX 560M 1380
GT 755M 2106
+52.6%

GT 755M outperforms GTX 560M by 53% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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%

GTX 560M 4702
GT 755M 4984
+6%

GT 755M outperforms GTX 560M by 6% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

Octane Render OctaneBench

This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 560M 15
+7.1%
GT 755M 14

GTX 560M outperforms GT 755M by 7% in Octane Render OctaneBench.

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:

900p31
−80.6%
56
+80.6%
Full HD39
+77.3%
22
−77.3%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Battlefield 5 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
−15.4%
14−16
+15.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
Hitman 3 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Battlefield 5 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
−15.4%
14−16
+15.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
Hitman 3 6−7
−50%
9−10
+50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Battlefield 5 8−9
−50%
12−14
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
−80%
9−10
+80%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Hitman 3 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−10%
10−12
+10%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−150%
5−6
+150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 1−2

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%

This is how GTX 560M and GT 755M compete in popular games:

900p resolution:

  • GT 755M is 80.6% faster than GTX 560M

1080p resolution:

  • GTX 560M is 77.3% faster than GT 755M

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

  • in Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 755M is 200% faster than the GTX 560M.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 755M is ahead in 53 tests (93%)
  • there's a draw in 4 tests (7%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 3.20 4.36
Recency 30 May 2011 25 June 2013
Maximum RAM amount 1536 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 50 Watt

The GeForce GT 755M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 560M in performance tests.


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

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M
GeForce GTX 560M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M
GeForce GT 755M

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User ratings: view and submit

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


3.5 78 votes

Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 69 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.