AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in this dataset is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are not close. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A scores 10,273 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro 450 scores 9,002 points. That is a 12.4% deficit for the AMD part, which is a significant gap in raw compute throughput. The GTX 950A wins the only head-to-head comparison, and the data shows no test where the Radeon Pro 450 comes out ahead.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the GTX 950A’s average benchmark score of 10,273 places it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon Pro 450, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 10,804 (averaged across three tests: Metal 12,893, OpenCL 9,002, and Vulkan 10,518), which puts it in the 49th percentile. That 0.4% percentile difference is marginal, but it masks the fact that the AMD card’s higher average is driven entirely by its Metal and Vulkan scores, which have no counterpart in the GTX 950A’s dataset.

The nearest rivals for the Radeon Pro 450 show how tight this performance band is. It sits 1.1% above the GeForce GTX 560 Ti (10,690), 0.4% above the Quadro K2200 (10,761), and 1.7% above the Radeon RX 6600S (10,629). It is 0.7% below the GeForce MX350 (10,883). For the GTX 950A, the closest competitor is the Radeon RX 6500M at 10,362, which the NVIDIA card trails by 0.9%. It also sits 2% above the Radeon R9 M375 (10,070) and 1.2% above the Tesla C2075 (10,400), while running 2% behind the Radeon RX 550X (10,481). These deltas are all within a few percentage points, indicating that both cards occupy a similar performance tier despite the head-to-head OpenCL gap.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations, and the data reflects a clear split in design priorities. The AMD Radeon Pro 450 uses the Baffin chip, built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured at 14 nm by GlobalFoundries. It packs 3,000 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A uses the GM107 chip, based on Maxwell architecture, made on TSMC’s 28 nm process. It has 1,870 million transistors on a larger 148 mm² die, yielding a much lower density of 12.6 million per mm². The AMD chip is more modern and denser, but the NVIDIA chip compensates with a more mature process and higher clock speeds.

Core counts are identical on paper: both have 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. That is where the similarity ends. Clock speeds tell a different story. The GTX 950A runs at a 993 MHz base and 1,124 MHz boost, whereas the Radeon Pro 450 has no listed base or boost clock. Instead, its memory clock is 1,270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), while the GTX 950A’s memory runs at 1,001 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The higher clocks on the NVIDIA part produce a substantial throughput advantage: pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s versus 12.80 GPixel/s, texture rate of 44.96 GTexel/s versus 32.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,024.0 GFLOPS. The GTX 950A is roughly 40% faster in raw FP32, which explains the OpenCL win.

Memory configuration differs in type and bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 450 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 81.28 GB/s. The GTX 950A has 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, but only achieves 32.03 GB/s. That is a 2.5x bandwidth advantage for AMD, which is notable for texture-heavy workloads. The GTX 950A’s power draw is listed at 75 W, while the Radeon Pro 450 is rated at 35 W, so the AMD part uses less than half the power to deliver roughly two-thirds of the FP32 throughput.

API support also diverges. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The higher Vulkan version on NVIDIA is a minor edge, but the DirectX feature level is lower (11_0 versus 12_0), which could matter for specific titles. Both are MXM modules with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The GTX 950A has no power connectors, while the Radeon Pro 450 lists none either, and both use PCIe 3.0, though the AMD card is x8 while the NVIDIA card uses MXM-B (3.0).

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 950A wins on raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 10,273 beats the Radeon Pro 450’s 9,002 by 12.4%, and its higher pixel and texture rates (17.98 GPixel/s versus 12.80, and 44.96 GTexel/s versus 32.00) make it the stronger choice for fill-rate-bound rendering. The FP32 throughput of 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,024.0 GFLOPS means the NVIDIA card handles general-purpose compute and shader-heavy workloads with more headroom. For tasks that rely on raw math — simulation, rendering, or compute shaders — the data points to the GTX 950A.

The Radeon Pro 450 wins on efficiency and memory bandwidth. At 35 W versus 75 W, it delivers its performance at less than half the power budget, which is critical for thin-and-light mobile workstations. Its 81.28 GB/s of memory bandwidth is 2.5x that of the GTX 950A’s 32.03 GB/s, which gives it a decisive edge in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios like high-resolution textures, large framebuffers, or data-intensive compute. The AMD card also has a superior DirectX feature level (12_0 versus 11_0), which may enable newer rendering paths in some applications.

In terms of benchmark breadth, the Radeon Pro 450 shows versatility. It scores 12,893 in Geekbench Metal, 10,518 in Vulkan, and 9,002 in OpenCL. The GTX 950A only has an OpenCL score, so there is no data on its Metal or Vulkan performance. That absence is telling for macOS users, where Metal is the primary API. The Radeon Pro 450’s Metal score is its strongest result, suggesting it is well-optimized for Apple’s ecosystem. The GTX 950A, with no Metal data, is a riskier choice for that environment.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on use case. If raw compute performance and fill rate are the priority, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A is the pick. It wins the only direct comparison by 12.4%, has higher pixel and texture rates, and delivers 40% more FP32 throughput. For gaming or compute workloads that scale with shader count and clock speed, the NVIDIA card is demonstrably faster. Its 48th percentile ranking versus the Radeon’s 49th is a wash, but the head-to-head OpenCL result is not ambiguous.

If power efficiency, memory bandwidth, or Metal compatibility matter more, the AMD Radeon Pro 450 is the better option. It uses 35 W versus 75 W, offers 81.28 GB/s versus 32.03 GB/s, and has a 12_0 DirectX feature level. Its Metal score of 12,893 is its best benchmark, and for mobile workstations where battery life and thermals are constraints, the 40 W power savings are substantial. The 49th percentile placement, driven by strong Metal and Vulkan results, suggests it is a more balanced performer across APIs.

For a builder choosing between these two, the decision hinges on whether you need speed or efficiency. The GTX 950A is a straightforward performance win in compute. The Radeon Pro 450 is a smarter choice for bandwidth-heavy tasks and low-power systems. The Verdict is not a blanket recommendation for either — it is a trade-off between 12.4% more compute and 2.5x more memory bandwidth, with a 40 W power difference in favor of the AMD part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A wins with a score of 10,273, beating the AMD Radeon Pro 450’s 9,002 by 12.4%.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 has 81.28 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A has 32.03 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 is rated at 35 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A is rated at 75 W. The AMD card uses less than half the power.

Q: Which card has better FP32 performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A delivers 1,438.7 GFLOPS, versus 1,024.0 GFLOPS for the AMD Radeon Pro 450, making it roughly 40% faster in raw compute.

Q: Does the AMD card support Metal?

A: Yes, the AMD Radeon Pro 450 scores 12,893 in Geekbench Metal. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A has no Metal benchmark score in the data.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon Pro 450 (average 10,804) is 1.1% above the GTX 560 Ti and 0.7% below the MX350. The GTX 950A (average 10,273) is 0.9% below the RX 6500M and 2% above the R9 M375.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon Pro 450 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 993 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1,124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1,270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) | 1,001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 32.03 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 12.80 GPixel/s | 17.98 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.00 GTexel/s | 44.96 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,024.0 GFLOPS | 1,438.7 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 35 W | 75 W |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

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

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

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2016-10-29 | 2015-03-12 |

| Predecessor | Not listed | GeForce 800A |