GeForce GT 335M vs GT 755M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 755M SLI and GeForce GT 335M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GT 755M SLI outperforms GT 335M by a whopping 788% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 502 | 1121 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.99 | 2.41 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | N14P-? | GT215 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 November 2013 (11 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (15 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 | 768 | 72 |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x 1300 Million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2x ~50 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 10.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.1555 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 233 |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
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 | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5400 MHz | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 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 data | Single Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
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.
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 | 36
+125%
| 16
−125%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+270%
|
10−11
−270%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+475%
|
12−14
−475%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
| World of Tanks | 120−130
+461%
|
21−24
−461%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+270%
|
10−11
−270%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 65−70
+475%
|
12−14
−475%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 60−65
+1160%
|
5−6
−1160%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+26.7%
|
14−16
−26.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
This is how GT 755M SLI and GT 335M compete in popular games:
- GT 755M SLI is 125% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 755M SLI is 1600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GT 755M SLI surpassed GT 335M in all 34 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.61 | 0.97 |
| Recency | 1 November 2013 | 7 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2 Watt | 28 Watt |
GT 755M SLI has a 787.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 1300% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 755M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 335M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
