NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M

Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 8 month(s) later
• Around 12% higher core clock speed: 1096 MHz vs 980 MHz
• Around 50% higher texture fill rate: 47.04 GTexel / s vs 31.36 GTexel / s
• Around 67% higher pipelines: 640 vs 384
• 2x better floating-point performance: 1,505 gflops vs 752.6 gflops
• 2x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 2 GB
• Around 96% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3366 vs 1713
• 2.2x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 10985 vs 4928
• 4.4x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 54.294 vs 12.449
• Around 74% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 795.325 vs 455.796
• 2.9x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.692 vs 1.295
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 51.794 vs 24.566
• 6.2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 174.513 vs 28.025
• Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5264 vs 3093
• Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3714 vs 3504
• Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5264 vs 3093
• Around 6% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3714 vs 3504

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M

• Around 50% lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 75 Watt
• 2.2x more memory clock speed: 5400 MHz vs 2500 MHz
• Around 36% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 333 vs 245
• Around 74% better performance in 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score: 2148 vs 1231

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3366 1713
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	245 333
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	10985 4928
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	54.294 12.449
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	795.325 455.796
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3.692 1.295
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	51.794 24.566
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	174.513 28.025
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5264 3093
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3714 3504
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 3344
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	5264 3093
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3714 3504
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3358 3344
3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score	GPU 1 GPU 2	1231 2148

Compare specifications (specs)