GeForce GT 755M
VS
Radeon HD 6900M

GeForce GT 755M vs Radeon HD 6900M

NVIDIA

GeForce GT 755M

2013Core: 980 MHz
VS
AMD

Radeon HD 6900M

2011Core: 680 MHz

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 GeForce GT 755M is positioned at rank 4 and the Radeon HD 6900M is on rank 347, so the GeForce GT 755M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

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
86%
#9
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 Radeon HD 6900M

#337
Radeon RX 550X (móvel)
MSRP: $35|Avg: $35
954%
#339
865%
#340
863%
#344
GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50
784%
#345
Radeon RX 6300
MSRP: $60|Avg: $40
779%
#347
Radeon HD 6900M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A
100%
#348
GeForce MX350
MSRP: $250|Avg: $200
99%
#349
GeForce 840A
MSRP: $100|Avg: $25
98%
#350
Radeon R9 M295X Mac Edition
MSRP: $450|Avg: $450
98%
#351
HD Graphics 630
MSRP: $100|Avg: $30
98%
#354
Radeon R7 M370
MSRP: $130|Avg: $40
96%
#357
Radeon 625
MSRP: $100|Avg: $50
95%
#359
Radeon R7 M350
MSRP: $100|Avg: $100
94%
#360
GeForce 920MX
MSRP: $100|Avg: $54
93%
#361
93%
#362
Radeon HD 7670A
MSRP: $100|Avg: $40
92%
Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce GT 755M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.1% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (2 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon HD 6900M.

InsightGeForce GT 755MRadeon HD 6900M
Performance
Leading raw performance (+1.1%)
Lower raw frame rates (-1.1%)
Longevity
🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018))
🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015))
Ecosystem
Supports FSR Upscaling
Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM
✅ More VRAM (+300%)
❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency
💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit

💎 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 GeForce GT 755M and Radeon HD 6900M

NVIDIA

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.

AMD

Radeon HD 6900M

The Radeon HD 6900M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 4 2011. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 680 MHz. It has 960 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,707 points.

Graphics Performance

The GeForce GT 755M scores 1,726 and the Radeon HD 6900M reaches 1,707 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GT 755M is built on Kepler while the Radeon HD 6900M uses TeraScale 2, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 755M) vs 960 (Radeon HD 6900M). Raw compute: 0.7526 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 755M) vs 1.306 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 6900M).

FeatureGeForce GT 755MRadeon HD 6900M
G3D Mark Score
1,726+1%
1,707
Architecture
Kepler
TeraScale 2
Process Node
28 nm
40 nm
Shading Units
384
960+150%
Compute (TFLOPS)
0.7526 TFLOPS
1.306 TFLOPS+74%
ROPs
16
32+100%
TMUs
32
48+50%
L1 Cache
32 KB
192 KB+500%
L2 Cache
256 KB
512 KB+100%

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

FeatureGeForce GT 755MRadeon HD 6900M
Upscaling Tech
FSR 1.0 (Software)
FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation
Not Supported
Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction
No
No
Low Latency
Standard
AMD Anti-Lag
💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GT 755M comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon HD 6900M has 512 MB. The GeForce GT 755M offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs System. L2 Cache: 256 KB (GeForce GT 755M) vs 512 KB (Radeon HD 6900M) — the Radeon HD 6900M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

FeatureGeForce GT 755MRadeon HD 6900M
VRAM Capacity
2 GB+300%
0.5 GB
Memory Type
GDDR5
Shared
Memory Bandwidth
Unknown
System
Bus Width
64-bit
System
L2 Cache
256 KB
512 KB+100%
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GT 755M draws 50W versus the Radeon HD 6900M's 75W — a 40% difference. The GeForce GT 755M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GT 755M) vs 350W (Radeon HD 6900M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin.

FeatureGeForce GT 755MRadeon HD 6900M
TDP
50W-33%
75W
Recommended PSU
350W
350W
Power Connector
PCIe-powered
1x 6-pin
Length
0mm
Height
0mm
Slots
0
Temp (Load)
80
Perf/Watt
34.5+51%
22.8