GPU Comparison

The GeForce 930M and GeForce GT 755M are both end-of-life mobile GPUs from NVIDIA, but benchmark data clearly separates them. The 930M wins the only available head-to-head comparison, yet the GT 755M holds a significant hardware advantage that is not fully reflected in that single test. The data indicates the 930M is the better choice for compute workloads using OpenCL, while the GT 755M is the superior option for raw graphical throughput and memory bandwidth. The 930M edges out the GT 755M by 2.3% in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 5046 against 4934. However, the GT 755M's pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 performance are all substantially higher, suggesting it would dominate in gaming or rendering tasks that rely on those specific metrics.

The Verdict

The benchmark results point to a split decision based on workload. The GeForce 930M wins the single recorded benchmark, making it the data-backed pick for OpenCL compute tasks. Its average benchmark score is also higher, at 4388 compared to the GT 755M's 4033. Conversely, the GeForce GT 755M offers massively higher theoretical performance in pixel fill rate, texture fill rate, and FP32 throughput, making it the clear choice for graphics-intensive applications like gaming and 3D rendering. The 930M sits in the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 755M sits in the 24th percentile, a marginal difference in overall standing. For users who prioritize compute workloads, the 930M is the winner. For users who need maximum graphics throughput, the GT 755M is the superior option, despite its lower benchmark score.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different NVIDIA generations and architectures. The GeForce 930M uses the GM108S chip based on the Maxwell architecture, belonging to the GeForce 900M generation. The GeForce GT 755M uses the GK107 chip based on the older Kepler architecture from the GeForce 700M generation. Both are manufactured on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the chips differ significantly in size and complexity. The GM108S chip contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm². The GK107 chip is larger, packing 1,270 million transistors onto a 118 mm² die, with a lower density of 10.8 million per mm². The 930M has a base and boost clock of 549 MHz, while the GT 755M runs much faster at a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1020 MHz. The GT 755M also supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, indicating a newer software feature set for the Maxwell part. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the GeForce 930M wins it. The 930M scores 5046, while the GT 755M scores 4934, giving the 930M a 2.3% advantage. This is a narrow margin, but it is a direct win. Beyond this single test, the GT 755M shows clear superiority in other measurable performance areas. Its pixel rate is 8.160 GPixel/s, which is 85.8% higher than the 930M's 4.392 GPixel/s. Its texture rate of 32.64 GTexel/s is more than double the 930M's 13.18 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the GT 755M delivers 783.4 GFLOPS, which is 85.8% higher than the 930M's 421.6 GFLOPS. The memory bandwidth difference is even more stark: the GT 755M provides 86.40 GB/s compared to the 930M's 12.80 GB/s. These figures indicate that the 930M's OpenCL win may come from software optimization or driver efficiency, but the GT 755M has vastly more raw hardware capability.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The 930M has a base clock of 549 MHz and a boost clock of 549 MHz, while the GT 755M has a base clock of 980 MHz and a boost clock of 1020 MHz. Both have 384 shading units, but the GT 755M has 32 texture mapping units (TMUs) compared to the 930M's 24, and 16 raster output units (ROPs) compared to the 930M's 8. The memory systems are completely different. The 930M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, running at 800 MHz with an effective speed of 1600 Mbps, yielding a bandwidth of 12.80 GB/s. The GT 755M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, running at 1350 MHz with an effective speed of 5.4 Gbps, yielding a bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s. The GT 755M has a TDP of 50 W and uses an MXM Module slot width, while the 930M has a TDP of 33 W and uses an IGP slot width. Neither uses power connectors, and both are portable-device dependent for display outputs. The bus interface also differs, with the 930M using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the GT 755M using PCIe 3.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M has a higher average benchmark score of 4388, compared to the GeForce GT 755M's average of 4033.

Q: How much faster is the GT 755M's memory bandwidth than the 930M's?

A: The GT 755M provides 86.40 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is significantly higher than the 930M's 12.80 GB/s.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each GPU?

A: The 930M uses 1,020 million transistors, while the GT 755M uses 1,270 million transistors.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The GeForce 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GeForce GT 755M supports the older Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two GPUs?

A: The 930M has a lower TDP of 33 W, while the GT 755M has a higher TDP of 50 W.

Q: Which GPU won the direct head-to-head OpenCL benchmark?

A: The GeForce 930M won the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark with a score of 5046, beating the GT 755M's score of 4934 by 2.3%.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 930M wins in compute-oriented tasks, as evidenced by its direct OpenCL benchmark victory. Its higher average benchmark score and better percentile standing (26th vs 24th) suggest it is the better overall performer in synthetic compute tests. The 930M also has a lower TDP of 33 W, making it more power-efficient and likely better suited for thinner, lighter laptops where thermal and power constraints are tighter. Its support for Vulkan 1.4 also indicates a more modern driver stack.

The GeForce GT 755M wins decisively in graphics throughput. Its pixel rate of 8.160 GPixel/s, texture rate of 32.64 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 783.4 GFLOPS are all roughly double those of the 930M. The GT 755M also has a massive memory bandwidth advantage at 86.40 GB/s, which is critical for high-resolution textures and anti-aliasing in modern games. With double the TMUs and ROPs, the GT 755M is equipped to handle more complex geometry and higher pixel fill rates. For gaming, 3D rendering, or any workload that stresses the rasterization pipeline, the GT 755M is the clear winner despite its lower synthetic benchmark score.

The data creates a clear dichotomy: compute workloads favor the 930M, while graphics-intensive workloads favor the GT 755M. The 930M's win in the sole head-to-head test should not be ignored, but the GT 755M's overwhelming advantages in memory bandwidth, pixel rate, and texture rate cannot be dismissed. Users who run OpenCL-based applications or value power efficiency should choose the 930M. Users who play games or work with 3D graphics should choose the GT 755M.