GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
2017
15 Watt
4.50
+108%

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) outperforms GT 755M Mac Edition by a whopping 108% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking653856
Place by popularity30not in top-100
Power efficiency20.782.99
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameVega Raven RidgeGK107
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date26 October 2017 (7 years ago)8 November 2013 (11 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 cores512384
Core clock speedno data1085 MHz
Boost clock speed1200 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rateno data34.72
Floating-point processing powerno data0.8333 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data32

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x16

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 typeno dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data80 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 dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12_112 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
CUDA-3.0

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:

Full HD17
+113%
8−9
−113%
4K10
+150%
4−5
−150%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 9
+125%
4−5
−125%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 15
+114%
7−8
−114%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10
+150%
4−5
−150%
Battlefield 5 18
+125%
8−9
−125%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10
+150%
4−5
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+125%
4−5
−125%
Far Cry 5 18
+125%
8−9
−125%
Far Cry New Dawn 18
+125%
8−9
−125%
Forza Horizon 4 58
+115%
27−30
−115%
Hitman 3 9
+125%
4−5
−125%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Metro Exodus 22
+120%
10−11
−120%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16
+129%
7−8
−129%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19
+111%
9−10
−111%
Watch Dogs: Legion 65
+117%
30−33
−117%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 30
+114%
14−16
−114%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10
+150%
4−5
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
+200%
2−3
−200%
Far Cry 5 10
+150%
4−5
−150%
Far Cry New Dawn 13
+117%
6−7
−117%
Forza Horizon 4 52
+117%
24−27
−117%
Hitman 3 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−33
+114%
14−16
−114%
Metro Exodus 17
+113%
8−9
−113%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10
+150%
4−5
−150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
+129%
7−8
−129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+121%
14−16
−121%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55
+129%
24−27
−129%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8
+167%
3−4
−167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7
+133%
3−4
−133%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+150%
2−3
−150%
Far Cry 5 7
+133%
3−4
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 23
+130%
10−11
−130%
Hitman 3 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 15
+114%
7−8
−114%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14
+133%
6−7
−133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8
+167%
3−4
−167%
Watch Dogs: Legion 45−50
+114%
21−24
−114%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10
+150%
4−5
−150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Hitman 3 9−10
+125%
4−5
−125%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+133%
12−14
−133%

1440p
Epic Preset

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

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hitman 3 1−2 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4
+300%
1−2
−300%
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 9
+125%
4−5
−125%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

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

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and GT 755M Mac Edition compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 113% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 150% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.50 2.16
Recency 26 October 2017 8 November 2013
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 50 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has a 108.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition 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.


AMD Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition
GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition

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.


3.5 1375 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 10 votes

Rate GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition 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.