NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Comparison

The data in the FACT PACK places the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M in different performance tiers, despite the GT 755M holding a higher overall percentile ranking. The GTX 1050, built on the Pascal architecture, consistently outpaces the older Kepler-based GT 755M in every directly comparable benchmark. These results highlight a generational leap in efficiency and raw compute capability, with the GTX 1050 delivering more than double the performance in specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison presents a decisive outcome: the GTX 1050 secures two wins, while the GT 755M records zero. The most striking difference appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GTX 1050 scores 15,233 against the GT 755M’s 4,934. This represents a 208.7% advantage, meaning the GTX 1050 delivers over three times the compute throughput in this OpenCL workload. Such a margin indicates that the Pascal architecture’s shader and scheduling improvements are not incremental but transformative for general-purpose GPU compute tasks.

The Geekbench Metal test shows a similarly lopsided result, though less extreme. Here, the GTX 1050 scores 7,823 versus the GT 755M’s 3,132, a 149.8% difference. While Metal is an API more commonly associated with macOS environments, the benchmark still reflects the underlying hardware’s ability to execute geometry and fragment workloads. The GTX 1050’s advantage in this test aligns with its higher pixel rate and texture rate, which are 46.56 GPixel/s and 58.20 GTexel/s respectively, compared to the GT 755M’s 8.16 GPixel/s and 32.64 GTexel/s.

The absence of other shared benchmarks in the FACT PACK limits the direct comparison to these two API-specific tests. However, the pattern is unambiguous. The GTX 1050’s average benchmark score across all tests is 3,629, while the GT 755M’s average is 4,033. This seeming contradiction — where the GT 755M has a higher average but loses the head-to-head — stems from the different benchmark suites each card was tested with. The GT 755M’s average is likely buoyed by results from tests not run on the GTX 1050, such as PassMark’s DirectX 9 or G2D tests, where the GTX 1050’s scores vary widely (83 and 457, respectively). For the two tests where both cards appear, the GTX 1050 is unequivocally faster.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1050 wins in every directly comparable scenario. Its strengths lie in modern compute APIs and higher sustained clock speeds. With a base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1455 MHz, the GTX 1050 operates at significantly higher frequencies than the GT 755M’s 980 MHz base and 1020 MHz boost. This clock advantage, combined with 640 shading units versus 384, allows the GTX 1050 to excel in shader-heavy workloads, such as those found in Geekbench’s OpenCL and Metal tests. For users running applications that leverage these APIs — physics simulations, video encoding, or machine learning inference — the data shows the GTX 1050 is the only choice between these two.

The GT 755M does not win any benchmark in the FACT PACK, but its higher percentile ranking (24th versus 21st) suggests it may perform competitively in legacy DirectX 9 or 2D workloads, though no direct data supports this against the GTX 1050. Its lower TDP of 50 W, compared to the GTX 1050’s 75 W, makes it a more power-efficient option for thin-and-light laptops where thermal headroom is minimal. However, this efficiency comes at the cost of raw performance, as evidenced by its halved pixel rate and texture rate. The GT 755M’s role is therefore limited to scenarios where power draw is the primary constraint, not performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench Metal score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 scores 7,823 in Geekbench Metal, which is 149.8% higher than the GT 755M’s 3,132.

Q: How large is the performance gap in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The GTX 1050 scores 15,233, while the GT 755M scores 4,934, giving the GTX 1050 a 208.7% advantage.

Q: Does the GT 755M have more shading units than the GTX 1050?

A: No, the GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, whereas the GT 755M has 384.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each GPU?

A: The GTX 1050 has a memory bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s, while the GT 755M offers 86.40 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The GTX 1050 has a boost clock of 1455 MHz, compared to the GT 755M’s 1020 MHz.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life products?

A: Yes, the production status for both the GTX 1050 and GT 755M is listed as end-of-life.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge across nearly every core specification. The GTX 1050 is built on a 14 nm process node at Samsung, while the GT 755M uses a 28 nm node at TSMC. This process advantage translates directly into transistor density: the GTX 1050 packs 25.0 million transistors per mm², versus the GT 755M’s 10.8 million per mm². The GTX 1050 also has more transistors overall (3,300 million versus 1,270 million) despite a larger die size (132 mm² versus 118 mm²).

Clock speeds favor the GTX 1050 significantly. Its base clock is 1354 MHz and boost clock is 1455 MHz, against the GT 755M’s 980 MHz base and 1020 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ, with the GTX 1050 running at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) and the GT 755M at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, but the GTX 1050’s higher memory clock yields 112.1 GB/s bandwidth versus 86.40 GB/s.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the GTX 1050. It has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GT 755M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. Consequently, the GTX 1050’s pixel rate (46.56 GPixel/s) and texture rate (58.20 GTexel/s) dwarf the GT 755M’s 8.16 GPixel/s and 32.64 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is also lopsided: 1.862 TFLOPS for the GTX 1050 versus 783.4 GFLOPS for the GT 755M. The GTX 1050 supports FP16 at 29.10 GFLOPS, while the GT 755M has no listed FP16 capability.

Power and physical dimensions differ as well. The GTX 1050 has a TDP of 75 W and requires a 250 W suggested PSU, while the GT 755M has a 50 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed. The GTX 1050 occupies a dual-slot form factor with dimensions of 145 mm in length and 111 mm in height, whereas the GT 755M is an MXM module with no listed dimensions. Display outputs also differ: the GTX 1050 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GT 755M’s outputs are described as “Portable Device Dependent.”

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The GTX 1050 uses the GP107 chip based on the Pascal architecture, part of the GeForce 10-series. The GT 755M uses the GK107 chip based on the older Kepler architecture, part of the GeForce 700M series. This architectural difference explains the performance chasm. Pascal introduced improvements in scheduling, memory compression, and asynchronous compute that Kepler lacks.

The process node is the most fundamental difference. The GTX 1050’s 14 nm Samsung process allows for higher clock speeds and better transistor density compared to the GT 755M’s 28 nm TSMC process. This is reflected in the transistor counts: 3,300 million for the GTX 1050 versus 1,270 million for the GT 755M.

API support also reflects the newer architecture. The GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 755M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 1050’s higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version indicate better support for modern rendering techniques. Neither GPU has ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate the RTX series. The GTX 1050’s predecessor is the GeForce 900 series and its successor is GeForce 20, while the GT 755M’s predecessor is GeForce 600M and successor is GeForce 800M.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 is the superior performer in every directly comparable test. Its 208.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and 149.8% lead in Geekbench Metal make it the clear choice for any workload that uses these APIs. The GTX 1050’s higher clock speeds, more shading units, and doubled ROP count provide a substantial advantage in both compute and rasterization tasks.

The GT 755M’s only advantage lies in its lower TDP of 50 W, which may appeal to systems with strict power budgets. However, this comes at a steep performance cost. The data shows no benchmark where the GT 755M outperforms the GTX 1050.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life GPUs, the GTX 1050 is the rational pick for gaming or GPU-accelerated applications. Its higher pixel rate (46.56 GPixel/s) and texture rate (58.20 GTexel/s) ensure smoother frame delivery in modern titles. The GT 755M should only be considered if the host system cannot physically accommodate the GTX 1050’s dual-slot, 145 mm length design. In all other scenarios, the benchmark results make the GTX 1050 the definitive winner.