
FirePro W600 vs GeForce GT 755M

FirePro W600
Popular choices:

GeForce GT 755M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FirePro W600 is positioned at rank 253 and the GeForce GT 755M is on rank 4, so the GeForce GT 755M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro W600
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 755M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GT 755M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the FirePro W600.
| Insight | FirePro W600 | GeForce GT 755M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GT 755M remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro W600 and GeForce GT 755M

FirePro W600
The FirePro W600 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in June 13 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 750 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,695 points. Launch price was $599.

GeForce GT 755M
The GeForce GT 755M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 25 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 980 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,726 points.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro W600 scores 1,695 and the GeForce GT 755M reaches 1,726 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro W600 is built on GCN 1.0 while the GeForce GT 755M uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 512 (FirePro W600) vs 384 (GeForce GT 755M). Raw compute: 0.768 TFLOPS (FirePro W600) vs 0.7526 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 755M).
| Feature | FirePro W600 | GeForce GT 755M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,695 | 1,726+2% |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 512+33% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.768 TFLOPS+2% | 0.7526 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB+300% | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro W600 | GeForce GT 755M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | FirePro W600 | GeForce GT 755M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (FirePro W600) vs 12 (11_0) (GeForce GT 755M). Vulkan: 1.2 vs N/A. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 6 vs 4.
| Feature | FirePro W600 | GeForce GT 755M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | N/A |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 6+50% | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 1.0 (FirePro W600) vs NVENC (Kepler) (GeForce GT 755M). Decoder: UVD 4.0 vs PureVideo HD (VP5). Supported codecs: H.264 (FirePro W600) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GT 755M).
| Feature | FirePro W600 | GeForce GT 755M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 1.0 | NVENC (Kepler) |
| Decoder | UVD 4.0 | PureVideo HD (VP5) |
| Codecs | H.264 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro W600 draws 75W versus the GeForce GT 755M's 50W — a 40% difference. The GeForce GT 755M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro W600) vs 350W (GeForce GT 755M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 168mm vs 0mm, occupying 1 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: Unknown vs 80.
| Feature | FirePro W600 | GeForce GT 755M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 50W-33% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 168mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | Unknown-100% | 80 |
| Perf/Watt | 22.6 | 34.5+53% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GT 755M is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2012).
| Feature | FirePro W600 | GeForce GT 755M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $599 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30 | — |
| Codename | Cape Verde | GK107 |
| Release | June 13 2012 | June 25 2013 |
| Ranking | #732 | #726 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.












