NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between these two legacy NVIDIA cards is clear and heavily favors the mobile part. In the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M wins outright. The GT 755M scores 4934 against the Quadro P400's 4249, a delta of 13.9% in favor of the older Kepler-based laptop GPU. That means for raw compute workloads that use OpenCL, the GT 755M is the stronger performer.

The Quadro P400, by contrast, has no benchmark win in the head-to-head data. It does, however, offer a Vulkan score of 5119 in its individual benchmark record, while the GT 755M shows a Metal score of 3132. These are different API tests, so they cannot be directly compared, but they do indicate that each card has its own niche in terms of supported compute interfaces. The P400's Vulkan result is its strongest recorded score, suggesting that applications leveraging Vulkan would see better performance from the workstation card.

For use-case selection, the data points to a simple conclusion: if the workload is OpenCL-based, the GT 755M is the pick. If the workload is Vulkan-based, the P400 has the advantage, as it is the only one of the two with a recorded Vulkan score. The P400 also positions itself as a professional workstation product with display outputs designed for multi-monitor setups, whereas the GT 755M is a mobile module with output dependent on the host laptop.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 has a higher average benchmark score of 4684, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M's average of 4033. This puts the P400 in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the GT 755M sits in the 24th percentile.

Q: In the shared OpenCL benchmark, which card wins and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4934 against the Quadro P400's 4249. The delta is 13.9% in favor of the GT 755M.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the GeForce GT 755M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The P400 has a higher feature level.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The Quadro P400 has 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, while the GeForce GT 755M has 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The P400's transistor density is 25.0M per mm² versus 10.8M per mm² for the GT 755M.

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

A: Yes, both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The Quadro P400 was released in February 2017, and the GeForce GT 755M was released in June 2013.

Q: Which card has the wider memory bus?

A: The GeForce GT 755M has a 128-bit memory bus, while the Quadro P400 has a 64-bit bus. This contributes to the GT 755M's higher memory bandwidth of 86.40 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s for the P400.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. This is a significant result because it shows the older, lower-end mobile GPU outperforming the newer workstation card in a general-purpose compute workload. The GT 755M scores 4934, and the P400 scores 4249. The delta is 13.9%, meaning the GT 755M is nearly 14% faster in this test.

The P400's individual benchmark record includes a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5119. This is the highest single test score for either card in their respective records. The GT 755M, meanwhile, has a Geekbench Metal score of 3132. Since these are different APIs, the database does not treat them as a head-to-head comparison, but it is notably the P400's Vulkan result is substantially higher than the GT 755M's Metal result. For users working in Vulkan-based environments, the P400 is the clear choice. For those in OpenCL environments, the GT 755M is the clear winner.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the P400's average score of 4684 places it 0.6% above the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and the AMD Radeon R5 M320, but 0.9% below the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX. The GT 755M's average of 4033 puts it 0.5% above the AMD FirePro M4150 and 1.4% above the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2, but 1% below the Intel HD Graphics 630 and 1.5% below the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB. These rival comparisons show that both cards are in a similar performance tier relative to their respective neighborhoods, but the GT 755M's single-test win is the defining factor in this matchup.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification. The Quadro P400 uses a GP107 chip built on a 14 nm process at Samsung, while the GeForce GT 755M uses a GK107 chip on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GT 755M has 384 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the P400 achieves a higher pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s versus the GT 755M's 8.160 GPixel/s, thanks to its higher clocks. The texture rate is 20.03 GTexel/s for the P400 and 32.64 GTexel/s for the GT 755M, favoring the latter.

Memory configurations also differ. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the P400 uses a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth, while the GT 755M uses a 128-bit bus with 86.40 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clocks are 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the P400 and 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) for the GT 755M. The P400's base clock is 1228 MHz with a boost of 1252 MHz, while the GT 755M runs at 980 MHz base and 1020 MHz boost.

FP32 compute is 641.0 GFLOPS for the P400 and 783.4 GFLOPS for the GT 755M. The P400 also lists FP16 at 10.02 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, while the GT 755M has no FP16 data. Thermal design power is 30 W for the P400 and 50 W for the GT 755M. The P400 is a single-slot card with three mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The GT 755M is an MXM module with no fixed dimensions and display outputs dependent on the host device.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is generational. The Quadro P400 is based on Pascal, NVIDIA's architecture from the Px000 Quadro generation. The GeForce GT 755M is based on Kepler, from the GeForce 700M generation. The P400 is built on a 14 nm process at Samsung, which allows for a much higher transistor density: 25.0M per mm² versus 10.8M per mm² for the GT 755M's 28 nm TSMC process. The P400 packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, while the GT 755M fits 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die.

The P400's Pascal architecture supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 755M's Kepler architecture is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The P400 has no RT or tensor cores, and the GT 755M also has none, so there is no ray tracing or AI acceleration on either.

The P400's higher clock speeds (1228 MHz base, 1252 MHz boost) compared to the GT 755M (980 MHz base, 1020 MHz boost) are a direct result of the more advanced 14 nm process. However, the GT 755M compensates with more shading units and a wider memory bus. The P400's pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s is more than double the GT 755M's 8.160 GPixel/s, which is a notable architectural advantage for fill-rate-bound tasks. Conversely, the GT 755M's texture rate of 32.64 GTexel/s is about 63% higher than the P400's 20.03 GTexel/s, favoring texel-heavy workloads.

The P400 has a lower TDP of 30 W versus the GT 755M's 50 W, reflecting its more efficient process node. The P400 is also a production workstation card with a fixed single-slot form factor and professional display outputs, while the GT 755M is a mobile module designed for laptops, with no standalone dimensions or outputs.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload and platform. For OpenCL compute, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is the stronger card, with a 13.9% lead over the Quadro P400 in the only shared benchmark. If the task is general-purpose GPU compute through OpenCL, the GT 755M is the better choice, despite being older and built on a less efficient process.

For Vulkan-based workloads, the Quadro P400 has the edge, as it is the only card with a recorded Vulkan score (5119). The P400 also offers a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_0), a lower TDP (30 W versus 50 W), and a more modern Pascal architecture with a significantly higher transistor density. Its pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s is more than double the GT 755M's, making it the better pick for tasks that stress fill rate.

The GT 755M counters with a wider memory bus (128-bit versus 64-bit), higher memory bandwidth (86.40 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s), more shading units (384 versus 256), and a higher FP32 throughput (783.4 GFLOPS versus 641.0 GFLOPS). Its texture rate is also higher at 32.64 GTexel/s versus 20.03 GTexel/s.

For a desktop workstation with multi-monitor needs, the Quadro P400 is the logical choice, given its three mini-DisplayPort outputs and professional form factor. For a laptop user who needs OpenCL performance, the GeForce GT 755M is the better performer. The database's head-to-head result is decisive: the GT 755M wins the only shared test, and that is the single most important data point in this comparison. The P400's strengths lie in newer API support and efficiency, but in raw compute performance where both cards can be directly measured, the GT 755M comes out ahead.