Intel Arc Pro B60 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database shows no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M and the Intel Arc Pro B60, so the comparison relies on their respective recorded scores and the nearest rival data for context. The GT 755M, a 2013 Kepler part, posts a Geekbench Metal score of 3132 and a Geekbench OpenCL score of 4934, giving it an average benchmark score of 4033. The Arc Pro B60, a 2025 Battlemage professional card, records a much higher Passmark G3D score of 14580, but its average benchmark score of 3182 is dragged down by lower scores in other tests, including a Passmark DirectX 10 score of 61, DirectX 11 score of 122, DirectX 12 score of 76, and DirectX 9 score of 179.

The most striking difference is in raw compute. The Arc Pro B60 delivers 12.29 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the GT 755M's 783.4 GFLOPS. That is a massive gap, roughly a 15.7 times difference in theoretical floating-point throughput. The B60 also has a 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 rate (2:1), while the GT 755M has no recorded FP16 capability. In terms of memory bandwidth, the B60's 456.0 GB/s is over five times the GT 755M's 86.40 GB/s, and the B60's 24 GB GDDR6 frame buffer dwarfs the 2 GB GDDR5 on the older card.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a different story when placed against rivals. The GT 755M sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rival being the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB at an average score of 4093, a delta of -1.5 percent, meaning the GT 755M trails that card by 1.5 percent. The Intel Arc Pro B60, despite its enormous compute advantage, sits at the 20th percentile, with its nearest rival being the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 at 3163, a mere 0.6 percent ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER at 3075, which the B60 beats by 3.5 percent. This suggests that the B60's benchmark profile is uneven, with some tests scoring very high and others very low, while the GT 755M is more consistent in its modest range.

The Passmark G3D score of 14580 for the B60 is particularly notable, as it indicates strong real-world 3D rendering performance in that specific test, but the low DirectX 9 and 10 scores suggest compatibility or driver overhead issues with legacy APIs. The GT 755M's Geekbench OpenCL score of 4934 is respectable for a 2013 mobile chip, but it is clearly outclassed by the B60's Passmark GPU Compute score of 7029. The data implies that the B60 has superior hardware capabilities, but its benchmark average is depressed by uneven test results, which is a key consideration for anyone relying on aggregate scores.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel Arc Pro B60 is the more capable GPU in raw specifications and compute performance. It has 2560 shading units versus the GT 755M's 384, 160 texture mapping units versus 32, and 80 raster operations pipelines versus 16. It also includes 20 ray tracing cores, which the GT 755M lacks entirely. The B60's FP32 throughput of 12.29 TFLOPS is a generational leap, and its 456.0 GB/s bandwidth and 24 GB memory capacity make it suitable for large datasets and modern workloads. The B60's launch MSRP is 499 USD, which is a single data point and not a value judgment.

However, the GT 755M is not without its own advantages in the benchmark data. Its average score of 4033 is higher than the B60's 3182, and it outperforms the B60 in the percentile ranking (24th versus 20th). The GT 755M also has a lower TDP of 50 W compared to the B60's 200 W, making it far more power-efficient for mobile or embedded use. The GT 755M's nearest rivals are all within 1.5 percent of its average score, indicating a stable performance class, while the B60's nearest rivals include the RTX 5080 SUPER, which it beats by 3.5 percent, suggesting the B60 can outperform a high-end card in some aggregate metrics but is inconsistent.

For users who need maximum compute power, modern API support (DirectX 12 Ultimate, Vulkan 1.4), and large memory capacity, the Arc Pro B60 is the clear choice from the data. For those constrained by power, space (MXM module versus dual-slot), or who prioritize consistent benchmark averages, the GT 755M may still hold relevance, but its end-of-life status and lack of ray tracing make it a legacy option. The verdict is straightforward: the B60 wins on specifications and modern features, while the GT 755M wins on efficiency and benchmark consistency.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,270 million transistors into a die size of 118 mm², yielding a transistor density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The Intel Arc Pro B60 uses the Xe2-HPG architecture, specifically the BMG-G21 chip, on a 5 nm process also at TSMC. This chip integrates 19,600 million transistors on a 272 mm² die, achieving a density of 72.1 million per square millimeter. The density difference, roughly 6.7 times, reflects the decade of process and design advancement.

Kepler is a graphics-focused architecture without dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores. The GT 755M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 8.160 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 32.64 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is 783.4 GFLOPS, and it supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Arc Pro B60's Xe2-HPG architecture includes 20 ray tracing cores, 2560 shading units, 160 TMUs, and 80 ROPs, with a pixel rate of 192.0 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 384.0 GTexel/s. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The B60 has no dedicated tensor cores, but its FP16 throughput of 24.58 TFLOPS (2:1) suggests it can handle AI-related workloads with reduced precision.

The memory subsystem differs as well. The GT 755M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The B60 uses 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 456.0 GB/s. The bus interface also differs: the GT 755M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the B60 uses PCIe 5.0 x8, which offers a newer and faster connection despite fewer lanes. The B60's display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 2.1, while the GT 755M's outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile MXM form factor.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two GPUs are extensive. The GT 755M has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1020 MHz, with a memory clock of 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). The B60 has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2400 MHz, with a memory clock of 2375 MHz (19 Gbps effective). The B60's clocks are more than double, which contributes to its higher throughput.

Memory capacity and type differ: the GT 755M has 2 GB GDDR5, while the B60 has 24 GB GDDR6. Bus width is 128-bit versus 192-bit, and bandwidth is 86.40 GB/s versus 456.0 GB/s. The GT 755M has a TDP of 50 W and an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors. The B60 has a TDP of 200 W, a dual-slot design, and requires a single 8-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 550 W. The GT 755M has a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the B60 uses PCIe 5.0 x8. The B60's physical dimensions are 167 mm (6.6 inches) in length, 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, and 40 mm (1.6 inches) in width, while the GT 755M has no recorded dimensions.

The release dates are 2013-06-24 for the GT 755M and 2025-09-04 for the B60. The GT 755M is marked as end-of-life, with a predecessor in the GeForce 600M and a successor in the GeForce 800M. The B60 is active with no predecessor or successor listed. The GT 755M has no launch MSRP, while the B60 has a launch MSRP of 499 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Intel Arc Pro B60, with 12.29 TFLOPS FP32 and 24.58 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), versus the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M's 783.4 GFLOPS FP32 and no FP16 support.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The B60 has 24 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 456.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the GT 755M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 86.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has better benchmark consistency?

A: The GT 755M has a higher average benchmark score of 4033 versus the B60's 3182, and its nearest rivals are all within 1.5 percent, while the B60's rivals vary from -0.9 to 3.5 percent.

Q: Does the B60 support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Intel Arc Pro B60 includes 20 ray tracing cores, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has none.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The GT 755M has a TDP of 50 W with no power connectors, while the B60 has a TDP of 200 W and requires a single 8-pin connector with a 550 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU has newer API support?

A: The B60 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 755M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Arc Pro B60 wins decisively in compute-heavy tasks. Its FP32 throughput of 12.29 TFLOPS and FP16 rate of 24.58 TFLOPS make it suitable for modern 3D rendering, scientific compute, and AI inference with reduced precision. Its 24 GB memory capacity and 456.0 GB/s bandwidth allow it to handle large textures and datasets that the GT 755M's 2 GB and 86.40 GB/s cannot. The B60's ray tracing cores provide hardware acceleration for ray-traced workloads, and its DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support align with current software standards. The B60's Passmark G3D score of 14580 is a strong indicator of its 3D rendering capability.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M wins in efficiency and benchmark stability. Its TDP of 50 W is a quarter of the B60's 200 W, making it suitable for power-constrained mobile environments. Its average benchmark score of 4033 is higher than the B60's 3182, and its percentile ranking of 24 is above the B60's 20. The GT 755M's Geekbench OpenCL score of 4934 shows respectable compute for its era, and its nearest rivals are all within a narrow 1.5 percent band, indicating predictable performance. The GT 755M's MXM form factor is also a differentiator for portable devices, whereas the B60 is a dual-slot desktop card.

In summary, the B60 is the choice for modern, demanding workloads with its superior architecture, memory, and feature set. The GT 755M retains niche value for legacy systems, low-power applications, and environments where consistent benchmark averages matter more than raw peak performance. The data does not support a single winner across all criteria; the correct pick depends entirely on the use case.