NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, using the Geekbench OpenCL workload. In this test, the GT 755M scores 4934 points, while the GTX 560M scores 4855 points. The delta is 1.6% in favor of the GT 755M, a narrow margin that places the two mobile graphics processors essentially on par for compute workloads.

The GTX 560M's score of 4855 places it in the 28th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX at 4844 (0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX at 4867 (0.2% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 at 4893 (0.8% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB at 4901 (0.9% ahead). This clustering suggests the GTX 560M sits in a highly competitive performance tier, where even a modern desktop GPU like the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB only edges it by a fraction of a percent in this particular synthetic test.

The GT 755M's OpenCL score of 4934 is complemented by a separate Geekbench Metal score of 3132. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4033, which places it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs. The nearest rivals for the GT 755M include the AMD FirePro M4150 at 4013 (0.5% behind), the Intel HD Graphics 630 at 4075 (1% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 at 3977 (1.4% behind), and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB at 4093 (1.5% ahead). The GT 755M's average score drags down its percentile ranking because the Metal test is less favorable, but in the OpenCL head-to-head, it manages to outperform the older Fermi part.

The win count is clear: the GT 755M takes one win, while the GTX 560M takes zero. The 1.6% delta, however, is small enough that real-world application performance could easily reverse the outcome depending on driver optimization or workload characteristics. The data indicates a statistical tie more than a decisive victory, but the newer Kepler architecture does hold the edge in raw compute throughput.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is the pick for users prioritizing the single measured OpenCL benchmark, as it posts a higher score at 4934 versus 4855. The 1.6% lead is modest, but it is consistent with the GT 755M's higher FP32 throughput of 783.4 GFLOPS compared to 595.2 GFLOPS for the GTX 560M. The GT 755M also benefits from a higher pixel rate of 8.160 GPixel/s and texture rate of 32.64 GTexel/s, versus 6.200 GPixel/s and 24.80 GTexel/s respectively.

However, the GTX 560M is not without arguments in its favor. Its 192-bit memory bus width, compared to the GT 755M's 128-bit bus, does not translate to higher bandwidth in the data: the GT 755M achieves 86.40 GB/s while the GTX 560M manages only 60.00 GB/s. The GTX 560M's 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die is a larger, less dense design, but it does feature more ROPs at 24 versus 16. For users working with applications that are highly ROP-bound, the GTX 560M could theoretically close the gap, though the measured OpenCL data does not support a win.

The percentile rankings are telling: the GTX 560M sits at 28th percentile versus the GT 755M's 24th, meaning the older card is more competitive against the broader GPU landscape in the database. This suggests that while the GT 755M wins the direct comparison, the GTX 560M may have aged better relative to its peers. For a strict head-to-head choice, the GT 755M is the safer bet based on the sole benchmark win, but the margin is thin enough that neither card offers a clear, overwhelming advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the recorded OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934 points, which is 1.6% higher than the GTX 560M's 4855 points.

Q: How does the GTX 560M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 560M is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (0.2% behind), AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (0.2% ahead), and NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (0.8% ahead). Even the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB only leads by 0.9%.

Q: Does the GT 755M have a higher average benchmark score?

A: No, the GT 755M's average benchmark score is 4033, which is lower than the GTX 560M's 4855. This is because the GT 755M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 3132, which pulls down its average.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GT 755M offers 86.40 GB/s, while the GTX 560M provides 60.00 GB/s. The GT 755M achieves this despite a narrower 128-bit bus versus 192-bit.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The GT 755M has a pixel rate of 8.160 GPixel/s, compared to 6.200 GPixel/s for the GTX 560M.

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

A: Yes, both the GTX 560M and GT 755M have a production status of "End-of-life" in the database.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several core specifications. The GTX 560M uses a 40 nm process node, while the GT 755M uses a 28 nm node. The GTX 560M has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, while the GT 755M has 1,270 million transistors on a much smaller 118 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 4.9M per mm² for the GTX 560M versus 10.8M per mm² for the GT 755M.

The GTX 560M's memory configuration includes 1536 MB of GDDR5 with a 192-bit bus and 60.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GT 755M features 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 86.40 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 560M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The GT 755M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Clock speeds differ significantly: the GTX 560M has a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), while the GT 755M runs at a base clock of 980 MHz, a boost clock of 1020 MHz, and a memory clock of 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). The GTX 560M's FP32 performance is 595.2 GFLOPS, while the GT 755M reaches 783.4 GFLOPS. TDP also differs: the GTX 560M consumes 75 W, while the GT 755M consumes 50 W.

The bus interface is another key difference. The GTX 560M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the GT 755M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Both use MXM Module slot width and have no power connectors. The GT 755M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the GTX 560M has no recorded Vulkan support. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 560M is built on the Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF116 chip, while the GT 755M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK107 chip. This architectural shift is significant. Fermi 2.0, released with the GeForce 500M generation, relies on a 40 nm process from TSMC and uses a larger, less dense die. Kepler, introduced with the GeForce 700M generation, moves to 28 nm and nearly doubles transistor density, allowing more shading units in a smaller package.

The GTX 560M's Fermi design features 192 shading units, which is half the 384 units found in the GT 755M. Despite having fewer shaders, the GTX 560M has more ROPs at 24 versus 16, suggesting a different balance between compute and rasterization. The Kepler architecture in the GT 755M also introduces a boost clock mechanism, with a base of 980 MHz and a boost of 1020 MHz, whereas the GTX 560M has no recorded base or boost clock, only a fixed memory clock.

The memory subsystem reflects the architectural differences. The GTX 560M's 192-bit bus with 1536 MB is a wider but slower configuration, while the GT 755M's 128-bit bus with 2 GB and higher clock speed delivers more bandwidth. The GT 755M's support for Vulkan 1.2.175 indicates a more modern API feature set, while the GTX 560M lacks any Vulkan support in the database. Both cards come from TSMC foundry, but the 28 nm Kepler node is more advanced than the 40 nm Fermi node.

The GT 755M's die size of 118 mm² versus the GTX 560M's 238 mm² is a stark contrast, showing how Kepler packed more transistors (1,270 million versus 1,170 million) into half the area. This efficiency gain is reflected in the TDP: the GT 755M draws 50 W, while the GTX 560M draws 75 W. The GT 755M also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 560M uses the older MXM-B (3.0) interface.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 755M wins in the measured OpenCL benchmark, posting a 1.6% higher score. This aligns with its higher FP32 throughput of 783.4 GFLOPS, faster pixel rate of 8.160 GPixel/s, and higher texture rate of 32.64 GTexel/s. The GT 755M also wins on memory bandwidth at 86.40 GB/s, despite the narrower bus. For compute-heavy tasks like OpenCL workloads, the GT 755M is the stronger performer according to the data.

The GTX 560M, however, is not without its strengths. It has a higher ROP count at 24, which can benefit fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its average benchmark score of 4855 is higher than the GT 755M's 4033, and its 28th percentile ranking versus 24th suggests it competes better against the wider GPU population. The GTX 560M's 192-bit bus, while slower in bandwidth, could offer advantages in certain memory access patterns, though the data does not explicitly confirm this.

For users with older systems, the GTX 560M's compatibility with the MXM-B (3.0) interface might be relevant, while the GT 755M's PCIe 3.0 x16 is more modern. The GT 755M's lower TDP of 50 W versus 75 W makes it a more power-efficient choice for thin laptops. In terms of API support, the GT 755M's Vulkan capability gives it an edge for newer games and applications that leverage this API.

The data shows only one head-to-head test, so the "win" for the GT 755M is narrow but real. The GTX 560M's strongest argument is its benchmark average and percentile, which reflect performance across a broader set of conditions. Ultimately, the GT 755M is the better choice for those who value the measured OpenCL performance and modern features, while the GTX 560M remains a respectable option for its ROP advantage and competitive standing among its peers.