Intel UHD Graphics 710 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M and Intel UHD Graphics 710 represent two very different approaches to graphics: a dedicated mobile GPU from the Kepler era versus an integrated graphics solution built into a modern Alder Lake processor. The benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the story is more nuanced than a simple win/loss count.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark available paints a decisive picture. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 trails at 3496. That is a 41.1% advantage for the NVIDIA part, which is a massive margin in real-world terms. The GT 755M is not just faster; it is in a different performance class entirely for compute workloads.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages confirms this trend. The GT 755M holds an average benchmark score of 4033 across its tested workloads, placing it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs. The UHD 710, by contrast, averages 3792 and sits in the 22nd percentile. While both are low-end performers by modern standards, the GT 755M still manages to edge ahead by roughly 6.4% in this aggregate metric.

The nearest rival data for each part adds context to where they stand. The GT 755M's closest competitors are a mixed bag: it trades blows with the AMD FirePro M4150 (4013, a 0.5% gap in NVIDIA's favor), the Intel HD Graphics 630 (4075, where the GT 755M is 1% behind), and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, 1.4% ahead). Its benchmark profile is clustered tightly around these parts, showing it sits in a well-populated performance tier. The UHD 710's rivals tell a similar story: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (3823, where the UHD 710 is 0.8% behind), the GeForce MX110 (3834, 1.1% behind), the GeForce GT 635M (3740, 1.4% ahead), and the Quadro 3000M (3718, 2% ahead). Both chips are surrounded by comparable performance, but the GT 755M's overall average is higher.

Interestingly, the UHD 710 shows a different benchmark profile. Its OpenCL score of 3496 is its weakest showing, but its Vulkan score jumps to 4088. This suggests the integrated part handles modern API overhead relatively well, even if raw compute throughput is limited. The GT 755M has no Vulkan data, only OpenCL and Metal scores (3132 in Geekbench Metal). This makes a direct API-to-API comparison impossible, but the OpenCL head-to-head is the key data point, and it favors NVIDIA decisively.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are separated by nearly a decade of technological evolution. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M uses the GK107 chip built on Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 10.8 million per square millimeter. The Intel UHD Graphics 710, on the other hand, is based on Alder Lake silicon using Intel's Generation 12.2 architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel's own fabs. No transistor count or die size is provided for the Intel part, which reflects its nature as an integrated component sharing the CPU die.

The compute resources differ radically. The GT 755M fields 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The UHD 710 is far more modest, with just 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This 3:1 ratio in shading units and 4:1 in TMUs explains why the NVIDIA part dominates raw throughput. Clock speeds partially compensate for Intel: the GT 755M runs at a 980 MHz base and 1020 MHz boost, while the UHD 710 starts at 300 MHz but boosts up to 1300 MHz. Higher clocks help, but they cannot overcome the massive core count deficit.

Memory architecture is another fundamental divide. The GT 755M is a discrete GPU with 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 86.40 GB/s of bandwidth at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). The UHD 710 uses system shared memory, with its bandwidth described as "System Dependent." This means the Intel part's performance is highly variable depending on the host system's RAM configuration, while the NVIDIA part has consistent, dedicated bandwidth.

Feature support also differs. The GT 755M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The UHD 710 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Intel's part has a newer DirectX feature level and a much newer Vulkan version, which matters for modern game compatibility. The UHD 710 also lists FP16 performance at 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature the GT 755M doesn't expose. However, the NVIDIA part's FP32 output of 783.4 GFLOPS is more than double the Intel's 332.8 GFLOPS.

Power and physical characteristics are starkly different. The GT 755M is rated at 50 W TDP and comes as an MXM module with no power connectors — it draws power through the slot. The UHD 710 is an IGP rated at just 15 W, integrated directly into the processor. The NVIDIA part connects via PCIe 3.0 x16, while Intel uses a Ring Bus interface. These differences dictate where each part can be used: the GT 755M belongs in a laptop with a dedicated GPU slot, while the UHD 710 is built into budget desktop and laptop CPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is significantly faster, scoring 4934 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to 3496 for the Intel UHD Graphics 710, a 41.1% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 710 support newer graphics APIs?

A: Yes. The UHD 710 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 755M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. This makes the Intel part better for modern game compatibility despite lower raw performance.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The GT 755M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 86.40 GB/s bandwidth. The UHD 710 uses system shared memory, with its size, type, bus width, and bandwidth all dependent on the host system.

Q: What are the power requirements for each?

A: The GT 755M is rated at 50 W TDP and comes as an MXM module. The UHD 710 is an integrated GPU rated at just 15 W TDP.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GT 755M has 384 shading units, while the UHD 710 has only 128. The NVIDIA part also has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, versus 8 TMUs and 8 ROPs for Intel.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GT 755M averages 4033 across its benchmark suite, placing it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs. The UHD 710 averages 3792, placing it in the 22nd percentile.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous about raw performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M wins the only head-to-head benchmark by a 41.1% margin and holds a higher average benchmark score. Anyone needing maximum compute throughput from these two options should choose the GT 755M. Its 384 shading units, dedicated GDDR5 memory, and 783.4 GFLOPS FP32 throughput make it the superior choice for gaming and GPU-accelerated tasks.

However, the Intel UHD Graphics 710 is not without merit. Its support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 makes it more future-proof for running modern titles that require newer API features. The GT 755M's DirectX 12 (11_0) support is a generation older, which could cause compatibility issues with some newer games. The UHD 710 also consumes far less power at 15 W versus 50 W, making it suitable for systems without a dedicated GPU slot.

The practical decision hinges on the use case. For a laptop with an MXM slot, the GT 755M is the clear winner — it offers significantly better performance in the same form factor. For a modern budget desktop or laptop where the GPU is integrated into the CPU, the UHD 710 is the only option available. The GT 755M cannot be retrofitted into a system designed for an IGP. In that context, the UHD 710's higher boost clock of 1300 MHz and newer API support make it a capable enough solution for basic tasks, but it will struggle in demanding workloads where the GT 755M excels.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M | Intel UHD Graphics 710 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Kepler | Generation 12.2 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 10 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 1,270 million | Not specified |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | Not specified |

| Shading Units | 384 | 128 |

| TMUs | 32 | 8 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 980 MHz | 300 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1020 MHz | 1300 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 86.40 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Pixel Rate | 8.160 GPixel/s | 10.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.64 GTexel/s | 10.40 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 783.4 GFLOPS | 332.8 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not specified | 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | Ring Bus |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.4 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Motherboard Dependent |

| Release Date | 2013-06-24 | 2022-01-03 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M wins on:

• Raw compute performance: 41.1% faster in OpenCL, 783.4 GFLOPS FP32 versus 332.8 GFLOPS.
• Texture and pixel throughput: 32.64 GTexel/s and 8.160 GPixel/s versus 10.40 GTexel/s and 10.40 GPixel/s, respectively. The GT 755M's texture rate is over three times higher, which matters for textured scenes.
• Dedicated memory: 2 GB GDDR5 with fixed 86.40 GB/s bandwidth, ensuring consistent performance regardless of system RAM.
• Core resources: 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs give it a massive parallel processing advantage.
• Average benchmark score: 4033 versus 3792, placing it in a higher percentile (24th versus 22nd).

Intel UHD Graphics 710 wins on:

• Modern API support: DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 enable compatibility with newer games and applications that the GT 755M cannot run at full feature levels.
• Power efficiency: 15 W TDP versus 50 W, making it suitable for low-power and fanless designs.
• Boost clock: 1300 MHz versus 1020 MHz, which helps close the gap in lightly-threaded or clock-bound workloads.
• FP16 performance: 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1) support, useful for certain compute tasks that leverage half-precision.
• Pixel rate: 10.40 GPixel/s versus 8.160 GPixel/s, meaning the Intel part can fill pixels faster at the rasterization stage, despite lower texture throughput.
• Integration: As an IGP, it requires no separate card or MXM module, simplifying system design and reducing cost.