GeForce GT 755M vs Radeon RX Vega M GL
Aggregate performance score
Radeon RX Vega M GL outperforms GeForce GT 755M by a whopping 115% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 439 | 632 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.54 | 0.89 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 22 | N14P- |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 February 2018 (6 years ago) | 25 June 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Current price | $1307 | $310 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RX Vega M GL has 185% better value for money than GT 755M.
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 | 1280 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 931 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1011 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 80.88 | 31.36 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,588 gflops | 752.6 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon RX Vega M GL 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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| SLI-ready | 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 | HBM2 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | no data | GDDR5 |
| Memory bus width | 1024 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1400 MHz | 5400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 86.4 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 | No outputs |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| LVDS signal support | no data | Up to 1920x1200 |
| VGA аnalog display support | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | no data | Up to 3840x2160 |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| HDCP content protection | no data | + |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | no data | + |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | no data | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | no data | + |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | no data | + |
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.
Radeon RX Vega M GL outperforms GeForce GT 755M by 115% based on our aggregate 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%
Radeon RX Vega M GL outperforms GeForce GT 755M by 115% in Passmark.
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 | 120−130
+114%
| 56
−114%
|
| Full HD | 45−50
+114%
| 21
−114%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
High Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
4K
High Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 0−1 |
This is how RX Vega M GL and GT 755M compete in popular games:
- RX Vega M GL is 114% faster in 900p
- RX Vega M GL is 114% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega M GL is 90% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX Vega M GL surpassed GT 755M in all 2 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.40 | 4.37 |
| Recency | 1 February 2018 | 25 June 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 50 Watt |
The Radeon RX Vega M GL is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 755M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
