AMD Radeon 550X vs NVIDIA GeForce 945M Comparison

AMD Radeon 550X vs NVIDIA GeForce 945M: two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions that nonetheless reveal a clear generational split. The recorded data shows a single head-to-head benchmark, but the underlying specifications and nearest rival comparisons tell a more nuanced story about where each chip still holds value.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon 550X scores 8866, while the NVIDIA GeForce 945M scores 8099. That is a 9.5% advantage for the AMD part, a meaningful margin in compute workloads where raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth dominate.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Radeon 550X also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 8970, which is higher than its OpenCL result. This suggests the GCN 4.0 architecture scales well with modern, low-level APIs, a point reinforced by its Vulkan 1.3 support. The GeForce 945M has no Vulkan score recorded, so its performance under such APIs is unmeasured in this database.

The average benchmark score for the Radeon 550X is 8918, placing it in the 45th percentile among all GPUs. The GeForce 945M averages 8099, sitting at the 42nd percentile. The three-point percentile gap is modest, but the absolute score difference of 819 points is substantial.

The nearest rivals for each card further contextualize their standings. The Radeon 550X sits within 1.3% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 (which averages 9022) and the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (9037), a surprising proximity for a mobile chip. Meanwhile, the GeForce 945M is nearly tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8135, a 0.4% gap) and the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8129, also 0.4%). The 945M edges out the NVIDIA GRID K2 by 0.2%, but trails the GTX 650 Ti Boost by 0.4%.

What the data implies is that the Radeon 550X is not just faster than the 945M; it is competitive with desktop parts from a higher tier, whereas the 945M is clustered with older midrange mobile and entry desktop chips.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different foundries and process nodes, which explains much of the performance gap. The AMD Radeon 550X uses the Lexa chip built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, packing 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die. The transistor density is 21.4 million per square millimeter, a figure that reflects the modern manufacturing process.

The NVIDIA GeForce 945M uses the GM107 chip on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,870 million transistors across a larger 148 mm² die, yielding a density of just 12.6 million per square millimeter. The smaller, denser AMD chip achieves higher clock speeds: the base clock is 1082 MHz versus 928 MHz, and the boost clock is 1218 MHz versus 1020 MHz. Higher clocks on a smaller die with more transistors per area indicate a significant architectural efficiency advantage.

Memory is where the gap becomes stark. The Radeon 550X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 945M also has 2 GB and a 128-bit bus, but it uses DDR3, capping bandwidth at 28.80 GB/s. That is a 3.9x difference in memory bandwidth, which directly impacts texture-heavy workloads and compute tasks that stream data.

Compute resources differ in interesting ways. The GeForce 945M has more shading units (640 versus 512), more texture mapping units (40 versus 32), and identical render output units (16). Yet the Radeon 550X achieves a higher pixel rate (19.49 GPixel/s versus 16.32 GPixel/s) despite the same ROP count, thanks to its higher clocks. The texture rate is close: 38.98 GTexel/s for AMD versus 40.80 GTexel/s for NVIDIA, a 4.5% edge for the 945M.

Floating-point performance tells a similar story. The GeForce 945M reaches 1,305.6 GFLOPS in FP32, while the Radeon 550X delivers 1,247.2 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part is 4.5% ahead in raw FP32, but the AMD part also offers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1,247.2 GFLOPS), which the 945M does not support at all. The Radeon 550X also features a higher DirectX version (12_0 versus 11_0) and a newer Vulkan API (1.3 versus 1.4 for NVIDIA, though the latter is a higher version number, the AMD part still supports Vulkan 1.3, which is not a trivial feature set).

Power draw differs notably: the Radeon 550X is rated at 50 W, while the GeForce 945M is rated at 75 W. The AMD chip delivers higher memory bandwidth and a benchmark win while consuming one-third less power, a direct consequence of the 14 nm process versus 28 nm.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 550X wins the only recorded benchmark, and the reasons are clear from the specification sheet. Its GDDR5 memory provides 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is essential for OpenCL workloads that move large datasets. The higher boost clock of 1218 MHz also helps in latency-sensitive tasks that do not scale perfectly with core count.

The Radeon 550X also wins on efficiency. At 50 W, it draws less power than the 945M's 75 W, making it a better fit for thinner laptops or systems with limited thermal headroom. Its smaller die size (103 mm² versus 148 mm²) and dual-slot form factor suggest it can be integrated into compact chassis, though the 945M's MXM module format is designed for upgradeable laptops.

The NVIDIA GeForce 945M has no benchmark wins in this database, but its specification sheet shows areas where it could theoretically outperform. It has 640 shading units versus 512, and 40 TMUs versus 32. In FP32 compute, it reaches 1,305.6 GFLOPS, which is 4.5% higher than the Radeon's 1,247.2 GFLOPS. This suggests that in workloads that are purely arithmetic and not memory-bound, the 945M could be competitive.

The 945M also has a higher texture rate (40.80 GTexel/s versus 38.98 GTexel/s), which could benefit certain texture-filtering scenarios. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is newer than the Radeon's 1.3, though this is a minor point given the lack of Vulkan benchmark data for the NVIDIA part.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the AMD Radeon 550X as the stronger overall GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 9.5%, offers nearly four times the memory bandwidth, consumes 25 W less power, and uses a more modern process node. Its average benchmark score of 8918 places it in the 45th percentile, and its nearest rivals include desktop cards like the GeForce GTX 660, which is a notable achievement for a mobile chip.

The NVIDIA GeForce 945M is not without merit. Its higher shader count and FP32 throughput mean it could handle certain compute tasks well, particularly those that are not memory-bound. The 4.5% FP32 advantage and 4.7% texture rate advantage are real, but they do not translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data.

For users who prioritize compute performance, modern API support, and energy efficiency, the Radeon 550X is the clear choice. For users who need maximum raw FP32 throughput or require MXM module compatibility for laptop upgrades, the 945M might be the only option, but the data does not support choosing it on performance grounds.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon 550X scores 8866, which is 9.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 945M's 8099.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The Radeon 550X delivers 112.0 GB/s using GDDR5, while the GeForce 945M provides 28.80 GB/s using DDR3, both on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 945M has 640 shading units, compared to 512 on the AMD Radeon 550X.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon 550X is rated at 50 W, while the GeForce 945M is rated at 75 W, a 25 W difference.

Q: Does either card support FP16 compute?

A: The AMD Radeon 550X supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, reaching 1,247.2 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA GeForce 945M has no FP16 support listed.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Radeon 550X averages 8918, placing it in the 45th percentile, while the GeForce 945M averages 8099, placing it in the 42nd percentile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 550X | NVIDIA GeForce 945M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1082 MHz | 928 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1218 MHz | 1020 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 640 |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 19.49 GPixel/s | 16.32 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 38.98 GTexel/s | 40.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,247.2 GFLOPS | 1,305.6 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 1,247.2 GFLOPS (1:1) | None |

| TDP | 50 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| DirectX Version | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Version | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2019-03-26 | 2015-10-26 |