GeForce 320M vs GT 755M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 755M and GeForce 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GT 755M outperforms 320M by a whopping 710% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 675 | 1229 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.07 | 1.64 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | C89 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 June 2013 (11 years ago) | 1 April 2010 (14 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 | 384 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 31.36 | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7526 TFLOPS | 0.0912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 16 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 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 type | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1350 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 86.4 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP content protection | + | - |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | - |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 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. 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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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:
| 900p | 56
+833%
| 6−7
−833%
|
| Full HD | 22
+10%
| 20
−10%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| World of Tanks | 70−75
+356%
|
16−18
−356%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+175%
|
8−9
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
This is how GT 755M and GeForce 320M compete in popular games:
- GT 755M is 833% faster in 900p
- GT 755M is 10% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 755M is 3000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 755M is ahead in 31 test (91%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.21 | 0.52 |
| Recency | 25 June 2013 | 1 April 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 23 Watt |
GT 755M has a 709.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce 320M, on the other hand, has 117.4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 755M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.
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.
