AMD Radeon Vega 3 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M Comparison

AMD Radeon Vega 3 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions that occupy nearly identical positions in the overall performance hierarchy, yet they achieve that status through fundamentally different architectural approaches and benchmark strengths. The data shows a split decision: the AMD part wins Geekbench Metal by 55.8%, while the NVIDIA part wins Geekbench OpenCL by 19.7%. Their average benchmark scores place them within 5.5% of each other, with the AMD Radeon Vega 3 averaging 4268 and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M averaging 4033, a difference of 5.8% in favor of AMD. Percentile rankings reinforce this near-parity, with the AMD part at the 25th percentile of all GPUs and the NVIDIA part at the 24th percentile.

The Verdict

The performance data presents a clear but conditional recommendation. For workloads that leverage Apple's Metal API, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 is the definitive choice, delivering a Geekbench Metal score of 4880 compared to 3132 for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, a 55.8% advantage. This is not a marginal lead; it is a dominant margin that makes the AMD part categorically superior in Metal-based applications. Conversely, for OpenCL-centric tasks, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M reverses the outcome with a score of 4934 versus 3963, a 19.7% lead. The NVIDIA part also holds advantages in raw throughput specifications—its FP32 compute of 783.4 GFLOPS is 85.5% higher than the AMD part's 422.4 GFLOPS, and its texture rate of 32.64 GTexel/s more than doubles the AMD part's 13.20 GTexel/s. However, the AMD part compensates with a significantly lower 15 W TDP versus 50 W, making it the more power-efficient option. The verdict hinges on software environment: choose the AMD Radeon Vega 3 for Metal-centric ecosystems and lower power envelopes; choose the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M for OpenCL workflows and higher peak throughput. Both parts are end-of-life, so the decision should be based on the specific API demands of the target applications.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different manufacturing generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 is built on the Picasso chip using a GCN 5.0 architecture, manufactured on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This newer node allows for a transistor count of 4,940 million across a 210 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5 million transistors per square millimeter. In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M uses the GK107 chip based on the older Kepler architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This results in 1,270 million transistors on a smaller 118 mm² die, with a transistor density of just 10.8 million per square millimeter. The AMD part's density advantage is more than double that of NVIDIA, reflecting the process node difference.

Feature support also diverges. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD part offers a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version. The core configurations are starkly different: the AMD part has 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 4 raster output units, whereas the NVIDIA part has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA part doubles or quadruples these counts across the board. Clock speeds also differ, with the AMD part running at a base of 300 MHz and boosting to 1100 MHz, while the NVIDIA part operates at 980 MHz base and 1020 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part's higher base clock partially compensates for its older architecture.

The AMD Radeon Vega 3 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with system-shared memory, meaning its memory size, type, and bus width are all system dependent. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, by contrast, is a discrete MXM module with 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD part's memory bandwidth is simply "System Dependent," which introduces variability in its real-world performance. The NVIDIA part also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, while the AMD part relies on the IGP bus interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results reveal a complete reversal between the two API environments. In Geekbench Metal, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 4880 against the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M's 3132, producing a delta of 55.8% in favor of AMD. This is the single largest performance gap between the two parts in any test. The magnitude suggests that the AMD architecture, despite fewer shading units, is far more efficient at executing Metal workloads. The AMD part's newer GCN 5.0 architecture appears to have better driver optimization or hardware-level support for Metal's feature set.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the tables turn decisively. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934, while the AMD Radeon Vega 3 manages only 3963, a delta of 19.7% in NVIDIA's favor. This result aligns with the NVIDIA part's raw hardware advantages: its 384 shading units provide double the compute units of the AMD part's 192, and its 783.4 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is 85.5% higher. The OpenCL benchmark appears to scale with these raw specifications, whereas the Metal benchmark does not. The average benchmark scores reflect this split: the AMD part averages 4268 across its three tests (Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), while the NVIDIA part averages 4033 across its two tests (Metal and OpenCL). Notably, the AMD part includes a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3961, which is nearly identical to its OpenCL score, suggesting consistent performance across non-Metal APIs. The NVIDIA part lacks a Vulkan score in the data, making a direct comparison in that API impossible.

The nearest rival data contextualizes these results further. The AMD Radeon Vega 3's average score of 4268 places it between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282, -0.3%) and the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, -0.6%), with the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M trailing at 4241 (0.6%). The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M's average of 4033 sits near the AMD FirePro M4150 (4013, 0.5%) and the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075, -1%), with the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 at 3977 (1.4%). Both parts cluster with mid-range mobile and entry-level discrete GPUs, reinforcing their similar overall standing.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 has an average benchmark score of 4268, which is 5.8% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M's average of 4033.

Q: What is the largest performance difference between the two in a single test?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench Metal, where the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 4880 versus 3132 for the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, a 55.8% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M have any advantages in compute throughput?

A: Yes, the NVIDIA part has an FP32 performance of 783.4 GFLOPS compared to 422.4 GFLOPS for the AMD part, an 85.5% higher raw compute throughput.

Q: What are the memory configurations of the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bandwidth, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 has a TDP of 15 W, whereas the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has a TDP of 50 W, making the AMD part more than three times more power-efficient.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 supports Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M supports Vulkan 1.2.175.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Vega 3 wins in scenarios that prioritize Metal API performance and power efficiency. Its Geekbench Metal score of 4880 is the standout metric, and its 15 W TDP is ideal for thin-and-light systems where thermal and power budgets are constrained. The AMD part's support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.3 also positions it better for modern API adoption. Architecturally, its GCN 5.0 design on a 12 nm process with 4,940 million transistors suggests better feature support per watt. For users running Metal-based applications on compatible platforms, the AMD part is the clear winner, offering a 55.8% performance advantage that outweighs its deficits in raw compute.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M wins in OpenCL-centric workloads and scenarios demanding maximum peak throughput. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4934 demonstrates superior performance in that API, and its hardware specifications back this up: 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs provide the foundation for higher fill rates. The NVIDIA part's pixel rate of 8.160 GPixel/s is 85.5% higher than the AMD part's 4.400 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 32.64 GTexel/s is 147% higher. The dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 86.40 GB/s bandwidth also provides consistent memory performance that the AMD part's system-shared memory cannot guarantee. For applications that are not Metal-specific and can leverage OpenCL, the NVIDIA part's 19.7% advantage makes it the better performer.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 uses a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries with 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The AMD part's clock speeds are 300 MHz base and 1100 MHz boost, while the NVIDIA part runs at 980 MHz base and 1020 MHz boost. Memory configurations are fundamentally different: the AMD part uses system-shared memory with a system-dependent bus and bandwidth, whereas the NVIDIA part has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 86.40 GB/s bandwidth. Core counts favor NVIDIA: 384 shading units versus 192, 32 TMUs versus 12, and 16 ROPs versus 4. Pixel rate is 8.160 GPixel/s for NVIDIA and 4.400 GPixel/s for AMD, while texture rate is 32.64 GTexel/s for NVIDIA and 13.20 GTexel/s for AMD. FP32 performance is 783.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA and 422.4 GFLOPS for AMD, with the AMD part also offering FP16 at 844.8 GFLOPS (2:1) while the NVIDIA part has no listed FP16 capability. TDP is 15 W for AMD and 50 W for NVIDIA. The AMD part is an IGP with a motherboard-dependent display output and no power connectors, while the NVIDIA part is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent outputs and also no power connectors. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3; the NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD part was released on 2019-11-19, while the NVIDIA part was released on 2013-06-24. Predecessors and successors also differ: the AMD part's predecessor is GCN 3.0 IGP and its successor is Vega II IGP, while the NVIDIA part's predecessor is GeForce 600M and its successor is GeForce 800M.