Radeon HD 6900M
VS
GeForce GT 755M

Radeon HD 6900M vs GeForce GT 755M

AMD

Radeon HD 6900M

2011Core: 680 MHz
VS
NVIDIA

GeForce GT 755M

2013Core: 980 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 Radeon HD 6900M is positioned at rank 347 and the GeForce GT 755M is on rank 4, 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 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 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 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.

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

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.

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.

Graphics Performance

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

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

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

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

Video Memory (VRAM)

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

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

Power & Dimensions

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

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