GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER vs GT 755M Mac Edition
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition with GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4070 SUPER outperforms GT 755M Mac Edition by a whopping 3500% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 866 | 9 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 13 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 67.34 |
| Power efficiency | 2.99 | 24.49 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | AD104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 8 November 2013 (11 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 7168 |
| Core clock speed | 1085 MHz | 1980 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2475 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 35,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 220 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 34.72 | 554.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8333 TFLOPS | 35.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 80 |
| TMUs | 32 | 224 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 224 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 56 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-pin |
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 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 1313 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 504.2 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 8.9 |
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 HD | 6−7
−3533%
| 218
+3533%
|
| 1440p | 3−4
−4667%
| 143
+4667%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−4200%
| 86
+4200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.75 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.19 |
| 4K | no data | 6.97 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 186
+0%
|
186
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 182
+0%
|
182
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 434
+0%
|
434
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 159
+0%
|
159
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 152
+0%
|
152
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 428
+0%
|
428
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 139
+0%
|
139
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 381
+0%
|
381
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Valorant | 400−450
+0%
|
400−450
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 148
+0%
|
148
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 148
+0%
|
148
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 265
+0%
|
265
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 154
+0%
|
154
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 74
+0%
|
74
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
This is how GT 755M Mac Edition and RTX 4070 SUPER compete in popular games:
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 3533% faster in 1080p
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 4667% faster in 1440p
- RTX 4070 SUPER is 4200% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.17 | 78.13 |
| Recency | 8 November 2013 | 8 January 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 220 Watt |
GT 755M Mac Edition has 340% lower power consumption.
RTX 4070 SUPER, on the other hand, has a 3500.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 4070 SUPER is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
