AMD Radeon 550X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear, though not entirely one-sided, picture. Across the two shared tests, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 secures a decisive victory in one and a narrow margin in the other. The most significant disparity appears in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GTX 960 scores 18,925 against the Radeon 550X’s 8,866. This represents a 113.5% advantage for the NVIDIA card, effectively doubling the AMD card’s output in this compute-oriented workload. Such a wide delta suggests a fundamental difference in raw processing capability that transcends mere clock speed adjustments.

In contrast, the Geekbench Vulkan test shows a much tighter contest. Here, the GTX 960 scores 9,231, while the Radeon 550X trails with 8,970. The delta narrows to just 2.9%, indicating that in graphics API-specific tasks, the performance gap is far less pronounced. This result is particularly telling, as it implies that the Radeon 550X’s architecture is more competitive when handling modern graphics workloads, even if its overall compute throughput is lower. The data reveals a card that is more balanced in gaming-like scenarios than its raw specifications might suggest.

Looking at the aggregate data, the GTX 960’s average benchmark score of 9,273 places it slightly ahead of the Radeon 550X’s average of 8,918. This overall figure reinforces the idea that the NVIDIA card is the stronger performer on average, but the Vulkan result serves as a reminder that the gap is not universal across all application types. The GTX 960 also holds a 45th percentile ranking among all GPUs, with the Radeon 550X matching that exact same percentile. This parity in percentile is a nuanced data point, suggesting that while the GTX 960 wins in raw scores, both cards occupy a similar tier in the broader performance hierarchy.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures, which explains much of their performance divergence. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is based on the GM206 chip, utilizing the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, and is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This older process node is larger and less power-efficient than the newer fabrication used for the AMD card. The chip itself contains 2,940 million transistors on a die size of 228 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.9 million per square millimeter. This is a relatively sprawling design for its era, prioritizing raw compute over density.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon 550X employs the Lexa chip, built on the GCN 4.0 architecture, and is fabricated on a more advanced 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This newer node allows for a much denser layout, with 2,200 million transistors packed into a die size of just 103 mm². The resulting transistor density is 21.4 million per square millimeter, a substantial improvement over the GTX 960. This architectural efficiency is a key differentiator, allowing the Radeon 550X to achieve competitive performance with significantly fewer resources. The GCN 4.0 architecture also natively supports FP16 computation at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, a feature the GTX 960 lacks entirely.

Memory subsystems are largely similar on paper, with both cards featuring 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The GTX 960 has a slight edge in bandwidth at 112.2 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s for the Radeon 550X, a negligible difference in practice. However, the computing cores tell a different story. The GTX 960 is equipped with 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, while the Radeon 550X is halved in each category, featuring 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This disparity in core configuration is the primary driver behind the GTX 960’s significant lead in fill rates and compute performance.

Where Each One Wins

The data indicates that the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is the clear winner in compute-heavy tasks. Its 113.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL confirms its superior raw throughput, making it the better choice for applications that leverage OpenCL for general-purpose computing, video encoding, or physics simulations. The GTX 960 also excels in pixel and texture processing, with a pixel rate of 37.70 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 75.39 GTexel/s, both roughly double the Radeon 550X’s figures of 19.49 GPixel/s and 38.98 GTexel/s. For any workload that stresses these specific subsystems, the NVIDIA card is demonstrably superior.

The AMD Radeon 550X’s strengths are more subtle and lie in efficiency and specific graphics API scenarios. Its 2.9% deficit in Geekbench Vulkan is a notable achievement, showing that its GCN 4.0 architecture is well-optimized for modern graphics APIs. This makes it a more viable option for Vulkan-based games where the performance gap is minimized. Furthermore, the Radeon 550X achieves this with a dramatically lower power draw, rated at 50 W TDP compared to the GTX 960’s 120 W. It also requires no external power connectors and has a shorter physical length of 145 mm versus 241 mm for the GTX 960, making it a superior fit for compact or low-power systems. For a user building a small form factor PC or a system with a limited power supply, the Radeon 550X’s efficiency is its primary advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 has a higher average benchmark score of 9,273 compared to the AMD Radeon 550X’s 8,918.

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

A: The GTX 960 leads by 113.5% in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 18,925 against the Radeon 550X’s 8,866.

Q: Is the Radeon 550X competitive in any benchmark?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench Vulkan test, the Radeon 550X is only 2.9% behind the GTX 960, scoring 8,970 versus 9,231.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The AMD Radeon 550X has a TDP of 50 W, requiring no external power connectors, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 has a TDP of 120 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector.

Q: Do both cards support the same level of DirectX?

A: No, the GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Radeon 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon 550X has a higher transistor density of 21.4M / mm², due to its smaller 14 nm process, compared to the GTX 960’s 12.9M / mm² on a 28 nm process.

Specification Differences

The most prominent differences between the two cards are in their core configurations and process technology. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 uses a 28 nm process, while the AMD Radeon 550X uses a 14 nm process. This leads to significant differences in die size, with the GTX 960 at 228 mm² and the Radeon 550X at 103 mm². Transistor counts also differ, at 2,940 million for the GTX 960 and 2,200 million for the Radeon 550X.

In terms of compute resources, the GTX 960 has double the shading units (1,024 vs 512), TMUs (64 vs 32), and ROPs (32 vs 16) of the Radeon 550X. This results in a much higher FP32 performance for the NVIDIA card, at 2.413 TFLOPS versus 1,247.2 GFLOPS for the AMD card. The GTX 960 also has a higher pixel rate (37.70 GPixel/s vs 19.49 GPixel/s) and texture rate (75.39 GTexel/s vs 38.98 GTexel/s). Clock speeds are similar, with the GTX 960 boosting to 1178 MHz and the Radeon 550X boosting to 1218 MHz, but the core count difference is the determining factor.

Power and physical specifications are also distinct. The GTX 960 has a 120 W TDP and requires a 300 W suggested PSU, while the Radeon 550X has a 50 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 960 requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, whereas the Radeon 550X has none. The GTX 960 is also longer at 241 mm versus 145 mm for the Radeon 550X. Finally, the bus interface differs, with the GTX 960 using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the Radeon 550X using PCIe 3.0 x8.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally points to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 as the more powerful GPU. Its dominant 113.5% lead in OpenCL performance and its higher average benchmark score make it the superior choice for users prioritizing raw compute throughput. The GTX 960’s doubled core count, higher fill rates, and greater memory bandwidth all contribute to a performance profile that is simply in a higher class than the Radeon 550X. For general-purpose computing, content creation, or any task that stresses the GPU’s compute units, the GTX 960 is the clear pick.

However, the AMD Radeon 550X should not be dismissed, as its data tells a different story focused on efficiency and modern API optimization. Its near-parity in the Vulkan benchmark, being only 2.9% behind, suggests that for a specific subset of modern games, the user experience would be remarkably similar. This is achieved with a 50 W TDP, no external power requirement, and a much smaller physical footprint. The Radeon 550X is the logical choice for a low-power, small-form-factor build where space and power are at a premium, and where the workload is primarily Vulkan-based gaming. The verdict from the data is clear: choose the GTX 960 for maximum performance, or the Radeon 550X for maximum efficiency in a compact form factor.