GeForce GT 755M vs Iris Plus Graphics

Performance Spectrum - GPU

GeForce GT 755M

50

1,726

0.0%

GeForce GTX 1650 with Max-Q Design

1,789

+3.7%

Arc A530M

Arc A770M

Arc B580

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. The GeForce GT 755M is positioned at rank #4 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Excellent cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 755M

#4

GeForce GT 755M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#6

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

94%

#8

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

86%

#9

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

85%

#13

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

78%

#14

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

77%

#18

Radeon RX 560X (móvel)

MSRP: $55|Avg: $55

76%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GT 755M is significantly newer (2013 vs 0). The GeForce GT 755M likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Iris Plus Graphics lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Iris Plus Graphics is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.7% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GT 755M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.

Insight	GeForce GT 755M	Iris Plus Graphics
Performance	❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.7%)	✅Leading raw performance (+3.7%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018))	Generation 11.0 (2019−2021) (10nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+100+%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	⚡ Higher Power Consumption	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the Iris Plus Graphics 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.

GeForce GT 755M Benchmark Check

Iris Plus Graphics Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce GT 755M and Iris Plus Graphics

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.

Iris Plus Graphics

The Iris Plus Graphics is manufactured by Intel. It was released in sem dados. It features the Generation 11.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 10 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,789 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GT 755M scores 1,726 and the Iris Plus Graphics reaches 1,789 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GT 755M is built on Kepler while the Iris Plus Graphics uses Generation 11.0, both on 28 nm vs 10 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 755M) vs 512 (Iris Plus Graphics). Raw compute: 0.7526 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 755M) vs 1.024 TFLOPS (Iris Plus Graphics).

Feature	GeForce GT 755M	Iris Plus Graphics
G3D Mark Score	1,726	1,789+4%
Architecture	Kepler	Generation 11.0
Process Node	28 nm	10 nm
Shading Units	384	512+33%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.7526 TFLOPS	1.024 TFLOPS+36%
ROPs	16+100%	8
TMUs	32	32

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce GT 755M	Iris Plus Graphics
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)

The GeForce GT 755M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Iris Plus Graphics has 0 MB. The GeForce GT 755M offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs System.

Feature	GeForce GT 755M	Iris Plus Graphics
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	Shared System RAM
Memory Type	GDDR5	Shared
Memory Bandwidth	Unknown	System
Bus Width	64-bit	System

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (GeForce GT 755M) vs 12_1 (Iris Plus Graphics). Maximum simultaneous displays: 4 vs 0.

Feature	GeForce GT 755M	Iris Plus Graphics
DirectX	12 (11_0)	12_1
Max Displays	4	0

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: NVENC (Kepler) (GeForce GT 755M) vs QuickSync (Iris Plus Graphics). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP5) vs QuickSync.

Feature	GeForce GT 755M	Iris Plus Graphics
Encoder	NVENC (Kepler)	QuickSync
Decoder	PureVideo HD (VP5)	QuickSync
Codecs	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2	—

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GT 755M draws 50W versus the Iris Plus Graphics's 15W — a 107.7% difference. The Iris Plus Graphics is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GT 755M) vs 1W (Iris Plus Graphics). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Integrated. Card length: 0mm vs 1mm, occupying 0 vs 0 slots.