GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data provides a single direct comparison between these two mobile graphics processors, and it clearly favors the older GeForce GT 755M. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GT 755M scores 4,934 points against 4,324 points for the GeForce 830M, a decisive 14.1% advantage. This is not a marginal win; it reflects a substantial gap in raw compute throughput. The GT 755M’s victory is its only head-to-head win, while the 830M records zero wins in the available tests.

Context from the nearest-rival data reinforces the significance of this margin. The GT 755M’s average benchmark score of 4,033 places it within 1.5% of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (4,093) and just 1% behind the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4,075). Meanwhile, the 830M’s average of 3,957 puts it essentially level with the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3,956) and only 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3,977). The 14.1% delta in the OpenCL test is therefore roughly three times larger than any of the differences between the two cards and their nearest rivals, underscoring that this is a real performance tier gap, not noise.

The two cards share the same 24th percentile ranking among all GPUs, which might suggest equivalence at a glance. However, the percentile is a coarse measure; the actual scores tell a more precise story. The GT 755M’s average score is 4,033, which is 1.9% higher than the 830M’s 3,957. The OpenCL result compounds this: a 610-point absolute difference (4,934 vs. 4,324) in the flagship compute test. For any workload that relies on OpenCL, typically GPGPU tasks, rendering, or compute-accelerated applications, the GT 755M is the clear choice.

It is also worth noting the absence of a Vulkan score for the GT 755M and the absence of a Metal score for the 830M. The 830M does appear in a Vulkan test with a score of 3,590, but no comparable data exists for the GT 755M in that API. This asymmetry means the head-to-head table is incomplete; the 14.1% OpenCL win is the only direct evidence, and analysts should treat other API comparisons as speculative.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct architectural generations from NVIDIA, and the design choices explain much of the performance gap. The GT 755M is built on the Kepler architecture (chip GK107) and belongs to the GeForce 700M generation, released in June 2013. The 830M uses the Maxwell architecture (chip GM108) and is part of the GeForce 800M generation, released in March 2014. Both are manufactured on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but they diverge sharply in transistor budget and die size. The GT 755M packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 10.8 million per mm². The 830M uses 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 13.2 million per mm². The smaller, denser die suggests a more efficient design in the newer part, but the raw resource count favors the older GPU.

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the GT 755M. It features 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The 830M has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, exactly half the TMUs and ROPs, and one-third fewer shading units. This explains the texture rate difference: the GT 755M delivers 32.64 GTexel/s versus 18.40 GTexel/s for the 830M. Pixel rate is closer, with the GT 755M at 8.160 GPixel/s and the 830M slightly ahead at 9.200 GPixel/s, a quirk of the newer Maxwell design’s higher clock speeds. The FP32 throughput (the standard measure of single-precision compute) is 783.4 GFLOPS for the GT 755M versus 588.8 GFLOPS for the 830M, a 33% advantage for the older card.

Clock speeds tell a counterintuitive story. The 830M runs at a 1082 MHz base and 1150 MHz boost, notably higher than the GT 755M’s 980 MHz base and 1020 MHz boost. The 830M’s higher clocks partially compensate for fewer cores, but not enough to overcome the resource deficit. Memory is where the gap becomes extreme. The GT 755M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The 830M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering just 14.40 GB/s, a six-fold difference in memory bandwidth. This is the single largest architectural differentiator and a critical factor for any bandwidth-sensitive workload.

Other differences are more practical than performance-oriented. The GT 755M uses an MXM module slot, while the 830M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) form factor. Both have no external power connectors, but the GT 755M has a higher TDP of 50 W versus 33 W for the 830M. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GT 755M versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the 830M, halving the available host bandwidth. API support is nearly identical, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the 830M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 755M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous on raw performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is the faster GPU. Its 14.1% OpenCL lead, combined with a 33% advantage in FP32 throughput, 2.67x higher texture rate, and 6x higher memory bandwidth, establishes it as the superior compute part. The GT 755M’s average benchmark score of 4,033 is higher than the 830M’s 3,957, and it sits closer to more powerful rivals like the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (within 1.5%) than the 830M does. For any user prioritizing raw graphics performance, gaming frame rates, or GPU compute tasks, the GT 755M is the correct choice.

However, the 830M is not without merits, though they are not evident in the benchmark scores. Its Maxwell architecture is more transistor-dense (13.2M vs. 10.8M transistors per mm²), which typically indicates better power efficiency per unit of work. The 830M’s lower TDP (33 W vs. 50 W) and IGP form factor make it more suitable for thin-and-light laptops where thermals and battery life are paramount. Its higher clock speeds (1150 MHz boost vs. 1020 MHz) and newer Vulkan 1.4 support (versus 1.2.175) suggest better driver maturity for modern API workloads. But these are qualitative advantages; the quantitative benchmark record shows the 830M losing the only direct test.

The verdict is simple. Choose the GT 755M for performance, it wins the head-to-head, has more compute resources, and delivers far higher memory bandwidth. Choose the 830M for efficiency and integration, it draws less power, fits an IGP design, and offers newer API support. The percentile ranking (24th for both) masks the fact that the GT 755M is the better performer; the 830M’s equal percentile is a function of its lower absolute scores being offset by its other characteristics in the aggregate database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has a higher average benchmark score of 4,033 compared to the GeForce 830M’s 3,957. In the direct head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test, the GT 755M scored 4,934 versus 4,324, a 14.1% advantage.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The GT 755M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 86.40 GB/s bandwidth. The 830M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The GT 755M’s memory bandwidth is six times higher.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GT 755M has 384 shading units, while the 830M has 256. The GT 755M also has 32 TMUs versus 16, and 16 ROPs versus 8.

Q: What are the clock speeds of the two GPUs?

A: The GT 755M has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1020 MHz. The 830M has a higher base clock of 1082 MHz and a boost clock of 1150 MHz.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The GeForce 830M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 755M supports Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The GT 755M has a TDP of 50 W, while the 830M has a TDP of 33 W. The 830M is more power-efficient, which aligns with its IGP form factor.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 755M wins in every measured performance category. Its OpenCL score of 4,934 is 14.1% higher than the 830M’s 4,324. It has a 33% higher FP32 throughput (783.4 GFLOPS vs. 588.8 GFLOPS), a 77% higher texture rate (32.64 GTexel/s vs. 18.40 GTexel/s), and a 6x higher memory bandwidth (86.40 GB/s vs. 14.40 GB/s). The GT 755M also has double the TMUs and ROPs, and more shading units. For gaming at higher resolutions, compute-heavy tasks like video encoding or physics simulations, and any workload that saturates memory bandwidth, the GT 755M is the unequivocal winner.

The 830M wins in efficiency and integration. Its TDP of 33 W is 34% lower than the GT 755M’s 50 W, making it better suited for ultra-portable laptops where heat dissipation is limited. Its IGP form factor (versus MXM module) allows for more compact system designs. The 830M has higher clock speeds (1150 MHz boost vs. 1020 MHz) and a newer Vulkan API (1.4 vs. 1.2.175), which may confer advantages in specific modern titles or compute applications that leverage Vulkan’s latest features. Its pixel rate of 9.200 GPixel/s is also 12.7% higher than the GT 755M’s 8.160 GPixel/s, a rare win in a rasterization metric. However, this advantage is unlikely to overcome the memory bandwidth deficit in real-world scenarios.

The data-driven split is clear: the GT 755M for performance, the 830M for power-conscious or space-constrained designs. Notably, the 830M’s nearest rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (average score 3,953, delta 0.1%), which is a close relative of the GT 755M. This suggests the 830M is effectively competing with the lower tier of the 700M series, while the GT 755M sits above that tier. The 830M’s only other distinguishing feature is its Vulkan 1.4 support, which the GT 755M lacks; for users running Vulkan-exclusive workloads, the 830M is the only option among the two. But for everything else, the GT 755M’s 14.1% OpenCL lead and superior memory architecture make it the benchmark champion.