GeForce GT 755M Mac Edition vs Qualcomm Adreno 690

Place in the ranking	813	872
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	26.85	2.99
Architecture	no data	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	no data	GK107
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	6 December 2018 (6 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 cores	no data	384
Core clock speed	no data	1085 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	5 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	7 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	34.72
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.8333 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	16
TMUs	no data	32

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

no data

PCIe 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 type	no data	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	no data	1 GB
Memory bus width	no data	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	80 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

No outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	no data	5.1
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	1.2
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 HD

23
+27.8%

18−20

−27.8%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Valorant	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Dota 2	14 +40%	10−11 −40%
Far Cry 5	16 +33.3%	12−14 −33.3%
Fortnite	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Grand Theft Auto V	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +38.9%	18−20 −38.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Valorant	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
World of Tanks	45−50 +40%	35−40 −40%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Dota 2	35 +29.6%	27−30 −29.6%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +33.3%	12−14 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +33.3%	9−10 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +38.9%	18−20 −38.9%
Valorant	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	1−2	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 +35.7%	14−16 −35.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
World of Tanks	18−20 +28.6%	14−16 −28.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Valorant	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +33.3%	12−14 −33.3%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +50%	10−11 −50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Dota 2	16−18 +33.3%	12−14 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Fortnite	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	1−2	0−1
Valorant	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%

This is how Qualcomm Adreno 690 and GT 755M Mac Edition compete in popular games:

Qualcomm Adreno 690 is 28% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.64	2.10
Recency	6 December 2018	8 November 2013
Chip lithography	5 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	7 Watt	50 Watt

Qualcomm Adreno 690 has a 25.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 614.3% lower power consumption.

The Qualcomm Adreno 690 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.