AMD Radeon HD 8950M vs AMD Radeon Pro 555X Comparison

AMD Radeon HD 8950M and AMD Radeon Pro 555X are both end-of-life mobile GPUs that land in the 54th percentile of all graphics cards, but their benchmark scores tell a nuanced story. The HD 8950M takes the head-to-head crown with wins in both shared tests, yet the Pro 555X counters with a higher peak score in a platform-specific benchmark and superior architectural efficiency. The data shows two GPUs separated by less than 1% in average benchmark score, making the choice heavily dependent on workload and platform.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test is the clearest separator between these two GPUs. The AMD Radeon HD 8950M scores 13,772, while the AMD Radeon Pro 555X trails at 12,628. That is a 9.1% advantage for the older card, a substantial margin that indicates the HD 8950M's compute throughput is meaningfully higher in this workload. This result aligns with the raw specification data, where the HD 8950M delivers 1.651 TFLOPS of FP32 performance compared to the Pro 555X's 1,393.2 GFLOPS.

The Vulkan results are far tighter. The HD 8950M posts 12,979 against the Pro 555X's 12,855, a mere 1% delta. This near-parity suggests that when both GPUs are pushed through a modern graphics API, the architectural gap narrows considerably. The HD 8950M still wins, but the margin is within noise territory for most real-world applications.

Notably, the Pro 555X has a third benchmark entry that the HD 8950M lacks: Geekbench Metal, where it scores 14,479. This is the highest single score between the two cards across all tests, exceeding the HD 8950M's best OpenCL result by 5.1%. However, because the HD 8950M has no Metal result in the data, this cannot be treated as a direct head-to-head comparison.

Looking at the averages, the HD 8950M sits at 13,376 across its two benchmarks, while the Pro 555X averages 13,321 across three. The delta is 0.4% in favor of the HD 8950M. This is reflected in the nearest-rival data, where the HD 8950M lists the Pro 555X as 0.4% behind, while the Pro 555X lists the HD 8950M as 0.4% ahead. For context, both cards sit within a tight cluster that includes the AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354) and AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356), with the AMD Radeon Pro 555 (13,407) slightly ahead of both.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational. The HD 8950M uses the Saturn chip built on GCN 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The Pro 555X uses the Polaris 21 chip on GCN 4.0, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This node shrink from 28 nm to 14 nm is a major factor in the efficiency differences observed.

The transistor counts tell a striking story. The HD 8950M packs 2,080 million transistors into a 160 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The Pro 555X crams 3,000 million transistors into just 123 mm², achieving 24.4 million per square millimeter. That is nearly double the transistor density, reflecting the newer process node's ability to pack more logic into less space.

Memory configurations differ in capacity but not width. The HD 8950M ships with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at an effective 5.5 Gbps for 88.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Pro 555X doubles capacity to 4 GB of GDDR5, also on a 128-bit bus, but with faster memory at 5.9 Gbps effective, yielding 94.08 GB/s. The Pro 555X thus offers both more capacity and higher bandwidth, despite the HD 8950M's higher compute throughput.

Core counts are identical: both have 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The difference lies in clock behavior and throughput rates. The HD 8950M achieves 17.20 GPixel/s pixel fill and 51.60 GTexel/s texture fill, while the Pro 555X delivers 14.51 GPixel/s and 43.54 GTexel/s. The HD 8950M's higher fill rates reinforce its compute advantage.

Power and interface specs diverge sharply. The HD 8950M is rated at 100 W TDP and uses an MXM module form factor, while the Pro 555X draws just 75 W and is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no power connectors. The Pro 555X also uses a narrower PCIe 3.0 x8 interface versus the HD 8950M's x16, though both are PCIe 3.0. The Pro 555X supports Vulkan 1.3, a newer API revision than the HD 8950M's 1.2.170, and both support DirectX 12 (12_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon HD 8950M wins in raw compute throughput. Its 1.651 TFLOPS FP32 output is 18.5% higher than the Pro 555X's 1,393.2 GFLOPS, and this translates directly to its 9.1% OpenCL victory. The HD 8950M also leads in pixel and texture fill rates, making it the stronger choice for workloads that hammer on rasterization throughput. Its Vulkan score, while only 1% ahead, still represents a win in a modern graphics API.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555X wins in efficiency and platform integration. Its 75 W TDP is 25% lower than the HD 8950M's 100 W, and its integrated design with no power connectors makes it far easier to deploy in thin-and-light systems. The 4 GB memory capacity is double the HD 8950M's 2 GB, which matters for larger texture sets or compute buffers. Its faster memory at 5.9 Gbps effective provides 6.9% more bandwidth despite the same 128-bit bus.

The Pro 555X also wins on the Metal benchmark, scoring 14,479, which is the single highest result in the dataset for either card. This suggests it has a platform advantage in Apple ecosystem workloads, consistent with its "Radeon Pro Mac" generation label. The newer Vulkan 1.3 support also gives it a forward-looking API advantage over the HD 8950M's 1.2.170.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8950M averages 13,376 across its two benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon Pro 555X averages 13,321 across three. The HD 8950M leads by 0.4%.

Q: How much faster is the HD 8950M in OpenCL?

A: The HD 8950M scores 13,772 versus the Pro 555X's 12,628 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 9.1% advantage.

Q: Does the Pro 555X have any benchmark where it scores higher?

A: Yes, the Pro 555X scores 14,479 in Geekbench Metal, which is higher than any result the HD 8950M has in the dataset. However, the HD 8950M has no Metal benchmark result for direct comparison.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The HD 8950M has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the Pro 555X has 4 GB of GDDR5, both on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU consumes less power?

A: The Pro 555X is rated at 75 W TDP, while the HD 8950M is rated at 100 W TDP. The Pro 555X also has no power connectors and is an integrated GPU, while the HD 8950M is an MXM module.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life. The HD 8950M was released in May 2013, and the Pro 555X was released in July 2018.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon HD 8950M | AMD Radeon Pro 555X |

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

| Chip | Saturn | Polaris 21 |

| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 2,080 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.0M / mm² | 24.4M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Clock | 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) | 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 88.00 GB/s | 94.08 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 17.20 GPixel/s | 14.51 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 51.60 GTexel/s | 43.54 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.651 TFLOPS | 1,393.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not specified | 1,393.2 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Vulkan API | 1.2.170 | 1.3 |

| Release Date | 2013-05-13 | 2018-07-15 |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the HD 8950M is the compute and rasterization champion, while the Pro 555X is the efficiency and capacity winner. If raw performance in OpenCL or fill-rate-heavy workloads is the priority, the HD 8950M's 9.1% OpenCL lead and higher FP32 output make it the pick. Its 1.651 TFLOPS versus 1,393.2 GFLOPS is a decisive advantage that no other metric in the pack overcomes.

However, the Pro 555X makes a compelling counter-argument for different use cases. Its 4 GB memory capacity is double the HD 8950M's 2 GB, its 94.08 GB/s bandwidth is higher, and its 75 W TDP is 25% lower. The Metal score of 14,479, which exceeds any result the HD 8950M achieved, suggests it is the better choice for Apple platform workloads. The newer Vulkan 1.3 support also future-proofs it better than the HD 8950M's 1.2.170.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical—13,376 versus 13,321, a 0.4% gap—so neither card has a blanket superiority. The HD 8950M edges out wins in both shared benchmarks, but the Pro 555X's additional Metal result and superior memory configuration give it strengths the older card cannot match. For users on a Mac platform or needing more VRAM, the Pro 555X is the logical choice. For those prioritizing raw compute in OpenCL or Vulkan, the HD 8950M delivers more performance per benchmark point. Given that both are end-of-life products, the decision should hinge on platform compatibility and specific workload demands rather than any broad performance verdict.