AMD Radeon 740M vs AMD Radeon Pro 455 Comparison

The AMD Radeon 740M and AMD Radeon Pro 455 are two very different integrated and mobile graphics solutions separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The benchmark data shows a near-perfect split: the Radeon Pro 455 edges out the 740M in OpenCL compute, while the 740M dominates in Vulkan graphics workloads. With average benchmark scores of 12870 for the 740M and 12831 for the Pro 455, the overall performance delta is a razor-thin 0.3% in favor of the newer part, placing both within a tight cluster that also includes the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 and AMD FirePro W5100. This page breaks down the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and the specific use cases where each GPU holds an advantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two competing benchmarks tell a story of divergent strengths. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon Pro 455 scores 10336 against the Radeon 740M's 10172, a margin of 1.6% in favor of the older discrete part. This is a modest but clear win for the Pro 455, suggesting that its dedicated memory subsystem and higher raw shading unit count provide a tangible benefit in compute-oriented OpenCL workloads. The 1.6% delta is small enough to be within run-to-run variance for some applications, but the consistency of the result across the two GPUs' overall scores—where the Pro 455's 12831 average sits just 0.3% below the 740M's 12870—indicates the Pro 455 holds a genuine, if slight, edge in this specific API.

The Vulkan results flip the script dramatically. The Radeon 740M posts a score of 15568, while the Radeon Pro 455 manages only 12240. That is a 27.2% advantage for the 740M, a massive gap that dwarfs the OpenCL difference. This result highlights the generational leap in graphics architecture: the 740M's RDNA 3.0 design is built for modern API efficiency, and the data reflects that with a performance lead that is over 17 times larger than the Pro 455's OpenCL win. In Vulkan-heavy scenarios—typically modern games and compute applications that leverage the API's low overhead—the 740M is unequivocally the faster part.

Looking at the broader rival context, both GPUs sit in a performance tier where small differences separate them from their nearest competitors. The 740M's average score of 12870 places it 0.2% above the AMD FirePro W5100 (12847) and 0.3% above both the Radeon Pro 455 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12830 each). The Pro 455, in turn, is 0.1% behind the FirePro W5100 and 0.5% ahead of the GeForce GTX 670 (12773). The 740M also trails the AMD Radeon RX 580 (12928) by 0.4%. These deltas confirm that neither GPU is a class leader; instead, they are mid-pack performers in the 52nd to 53rd percentile of all GPUs, where architectural efficiency and driver optimization matter more than raw specification sheet numbers.

Architecture Differences

The foundational difference between these two GPUs is their manufacturing process and core design. The Radeon 740M is built on TSMC's 4 nm node with a die size of 137 mm², packing 20,900 million transistors for a transistor density of 152.6 million per mm². The Radeon Pro 455 uses GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, with a die size of 123 mm² and just 3,000 million transistors, yielding a density of only 24.4 million per mm². This is a 6.25x difference in transistor density, which directly explains why the 740M can achieve comparable or better performance despite having fewer dedicated execution units.

The execution resources are where the Pro 455 appears superficially stronger. The Pro 455 features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines, versus the 740M's 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. However, the 740M compensates with significantly higher clock speeds: a base of 800 MHz and a boost of 2800 MHz, while the Pro 455's clocks are not listed in the data. The 740M also introduces 4 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the Pro 455, and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) compared to the Pro 455's DirectX 12 (12_0). Vulkan support also differs, with the 740M at version 1.4 versus the Pro 455's 1.3.

Memory architecture is another critical split. The Radeon 740M uses system-shared memory with a bus width and bandwidth that are "system dependent," meaning performance scales with the host system's RAM. The Radeon Pro 455, by contrast, has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s of bandwidth and a memory clock of 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). This dedicated memory gives the Pro 455 a predictability advantage in bandwidth-sensitive tasks, while the 740M's shared memory can be faster or slower depending on the platform. The 740M's pixel rate of 22.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 44.80 GTexel/s outpace the Pro 455's 13.68 GPixel/s and 41.04 GTexel/s, respectively, reflecting the newer architecture's higher per-clock efficiency. FP32 throughput tells a similar story: the 740M delivers 2.867 TFLOPS versus the Pro 455's 1,313.3 GFLOPS (approximately 1.31 TFLOPS), more than doubling the raw compute throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 740M wins decisively in any workload that leverages Vulkan, as evidenced by its 27.2% lead in that benchmark. This makes it the better choice for modern gaming titles, especially those built on Vulkan or DirectX 12 Ultimate, where its ray tracing cores and newer API support can be utilized. The 740M's higher pixel and texture rates also suggest superior fill-rate-bound performance, making it stronger for resolution-scaling and texture-heavy scenes. Its 4 nm process and 45 W TDP, versus the Pro 455's 35 W, indicate that the 740M trades some power efficiency for a much larger compute budget, but in a system with adequate cooling, that translates to real performance gains in graphics-heavy applications.

The Radeon Pro 455 wins in OpenCL compute, albeit by a slim 1.6% margin. This advantage likely stems from its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory, which provides consistent bandwidth without contending with system RAM for CPU and GPU access. For professional applications that are primarily OpenCL-based—such as certain video encoding, scientific simulation, or older CAD tools—the Pro 455's predictability and dedicated memory make it a reliable, if not faster, option. Its 768 shading units also provide a higher theoretical parallel thread count, which can help in workloads that scale well with raw shading unit count rather than architectural efficiency. The Pro 455's end-of-life production status, however, means it is no longer available new, limiting its practical appeal to used or refurbished systems.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 740M has an average benchmark score of 12870, which is 0.3% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 455's average of 12831.

Q: How much faster is the Radeon 740M in Vulkan?

A: The Radeon 740M scores 15568 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, which is 27.2% higher than the Radeon Pro 455's score of 12240.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 455 win any benchmark?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro 455 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 10336, compared to the Radeon 740M's 10172, a 1.6% difference.

Q: What are the memory specifications of the Radeon Pro 455?

A: The Radeon Pro 455 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective).

Q: Does the Radeon 740M support ray tracing?

A: Yes, the Radeon 740M includes 4 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Radeon Pro 455 has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The Radeon 740M is listed as "Active" production status, while the Radeon Pro 455 is listed as "End-of-life."

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload. For users running Vulkan-based applications or modern games, the AMD Radeon 740M is the unequivocal choice, offering a 27.2% performance advantage that makes the Pro 455 feel dated. Its ray tracing support, higher pixel and texture rates, and more than double the FP32 throughput (2.867 TFLOPS vs 1,313.3 GFLOPS) position it as the superior graphics processor for contemporary software. The 740M's 53rd percentile ranking versus the Pro 455's 52nd also reflects its slight edge in overall standing.

For OpenCL-centric workloads, the Radeon Pro 455's 1.6% win is real but narrow. Its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory and 768 shading units provide a stable compute platform, and its 35 W TDP makes it more power-efficient than the 740M's 45 W. However, the Pro 455's end-of-life status and lack of modern API support (no ray tracing, Vulkan 1.3 vs 1.4) mean it is only appropriate for legacy systems or specialized compute tasks where OpenCL is the sole API and memory bandwidth predictability is paramount. In almost every forward-looking scenario, the Radeon 740M's architectural advantages and Vulkan dominance make it the better all-around selection.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 740M | AMD Radeon Pro 455 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 20,900 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 137 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 152.6M / mm² | 24.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 800 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 2800 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 81.28 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 768 |

| TMUs | 16 | 48 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Ray Tracing Cores | 4 | Not listed |

| Pixel Rate | 22.40 GPixel/s | 13.68 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.80 GTexel/s | 41.04 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 2.867 TFLOPS | 1,313.3 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 2.867 TFLOPS (1:1) | 1,313.3 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 45 W | 35 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2024-01-30 | 2016-10-29 |