GeForce GT 755M vs Radeon RX 480

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 480 with GeForce GT 755M, including specs and performance data.

RX 480
2016
8 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
22.35
+410%

RX 480 outperforms GT 755M by a whopping 410% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking250671
Place by popularity97not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation15.82no data
Power efficiency10.216.00
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameEllesmereGK107
GCN generation4th Genno data
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date29 June 2016 (8 years ago)25 June 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores2304384
Compute units36no data
Core clock speed1120 MHz980 MHz
Boost clock speed1266 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,700 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate182.331.36
Floating-point processing power5.834 TFLOPS0.7526 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs14432

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportn/aPCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length241 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno data
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB2 GB
Standard memory configurationno dataGDDR5
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed8000 MHz1350 MHz
Memory bandwidth224 GB/s86.4 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
eDP 1.2 signal supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
LVDS signal supportno dataUp to 1920x1200
VGA аnalog display supportno dataUp to 2048x1536
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportno dataUp to 3840x2160
HDMI2.0+
HDCP content protection-+
DisplayPort support1.4HDR-
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.

AppAccelerationn/a-
CrossFire+-
Enduron/a-
FRTC+-
FreeSync+-
HD3Dn/a-
LiquidVR+-
PowerTune+-
TressFX+-
TrueAudion/a-
ZeroCore+-
UVD+-
VCE+-
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.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 API
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan+1.1.126
Mantlen/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.

RX 480 22.35
+410%
GT 755M 4.38

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.

RX 480 8609
+410%
GT 755M 1688

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

RX 480 17919
+540%
GT 755M 2801

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.

RX 480 39552
+211%
GT 755M 12711

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

RX 480 12186
+479%
GT 755M 2106

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

RX 480 72213
+382%
GT 755M 14967

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

RX 480 132
+375%
GT 755M 28

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:

900p280−290
+400%
56
−400%
Full HD78
+239%
23
−239%
1440p52
+420%
10−12
−420%
4K35
+483%
6−7
−483%

Cost per frame, $

1080p2.94no data
1440p4.40no data
4K6.54no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+350%
8−9
−350%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 58
+383%
12−14
−383%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+850%
4−5
−850%
Battlefield 5 70−75
+630%
10−11
−630%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+350%
10−11
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+350%
8−9
−350%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+478%
9−10
−478%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+392%
12−14
−392%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+396%
27−30
−396%
Hitman 3 40−45
+340%
10−11
−340%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+262%
27−30
−262%
Metro Exodus 93
+933%
9−10
−933%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+436%
10−12
−436%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110
+588%
16−18
−588%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+120%
40−45
−120%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 93
+675%
12−14
−675%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+850%
4−5
−850%
Battlefield 5 48
+380%
10−11
−380%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+350%
10−11
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+350%
8−9
−350%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+478%
9−10
−478%
Far Cry New Dawn 31
+158%
12−14
−158%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+396%
27−30
−396%
Hitman 3 40−45
+340%
10−11
−340%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+262%
27−30
−262%
Metro Exodus 78
+767%
9−10
−767%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+436%
10−12
−436%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+369%
16−18
−369%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+188%
16−18
−188%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+120%
40−45
−120%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35
+192%
12−14
−192%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40
+850%
4−5
−850%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+350%
10−11
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+350%
8−9
−350%
Far Cry 5 45
+400%
9−10
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 77
+185%
27−30
−185%
Hitman 3 40−45
+340%
10−11
−340%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+262%
27−30
−262%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+369%
16−18
−369%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+159%
16−18
−159%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
+120%
40−45
−120%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+436%
10−12
−436%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 65
+713%
8−9
−713%
Far Cry New Dawn 42
+500%
7−8
−500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+425%
4−5
−425%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+525%
4−5
−525%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Far Cry 5 30
+500%
5−6
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+1700%
7−8
−1700%
Hitman 3 24−27
+189%
9−10
−189%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+360%
10−11
−360%
Metro Exodus 50
+4900%
1−2
−4900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50
+422%
9−10
−422%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+800%
3−4
−800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+378%
27−30
−378%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+363%
8−9
−363%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 31
+933%
3−4
−933%
Far Cry New Dawn 21
+600%
3−4
−600%
Hitman 3 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 60
+2900%
2−3
−2900%
Metro Exodus 25
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 17
+467%
3−4
−467%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 15
+650%
2−3
−650%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+933%
3−4
−933%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24−27
+420%
5−6
−420%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+280%
5−6
−280%

This is how RX 480 and GT 755M compete in popular games:

  • RX 480 is 400% faster in 900p
  • RX 480 is 239% faster in 1080p
  • RX 480 is 420% faster in 1440p
  • RX 480 is 483% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 480 is 4900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, RX 480 surpassed GT 755M in all 67 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 22.35 4.38
Recency 29 June 2016 25 June 2013
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 50 Watt

RX 480 has a 410.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

GT 755M, on the other hand, has 200% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 755M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 480 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 755M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon RX 480
Radeon RX 480
NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M
GeForce GT 755M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 1845 votes

Rate Radeon RX 480 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 78 votes

Rate GeForce GT 755M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.