AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 split their benchmark wins cleanly along workload lines. The AMD card takes 2 out of 3 head-to-head tests, while the NVIDIA card wins the remaining test by a decisive margin. Looking at the recorded data, the Radeon Pro 450 leads in Geekbench Metal with a score of 12893 against 8773, a 47% advantage, and it also wins in Geekbench Vulkan with 10518 versus 9231, a 13.9% edge. The GTX 960 dominates Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 18925 against 9002, which is a 52.4% swing in its favor.

This split suggests the Radeon Pro 450 is the stronger choice for Metal-based workloads and Vulkan applications, which matters for macOS users and cross-platform development. The GTX 960, by contrast, shows its strength in OpenCL compute, where its raw shader throughput and higher clock rates translate into a large numerical advantage. For someone running OpenCL-heavy tasks, the GTX 960 is clearly the more capable part. For Metal-centric workflows, the Radeon Pro 450 is the one to pick.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The Radeon Pro 450 posts an average score of 10804 across all recorded tests and sits at the 49th percentile among all GPUs. The GTX 960 averages 9273 and lands at the 45th percentile. That puts the Radeon Pro 450 slightly ahead overall, but the margin is small, and the per-test results matter more than the averages. The GTX 960's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 465 at 9294 (0.2% higher) and the GTX 850M at 9302 (0.3% higher), while the Radeon Pro 450's nearest rivals include the Quadro K2200 at 10761 (0.4% lower) and the GeForce MX350 at 10883 (0.7% higher). Both cards sit in a crowded performance band where neighboring GPUs are within a percentage point or two.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Metal benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 scores 12893 in Geekbench Metal, which is 47% higher than the GTX 960's 8773. This is the largest single-test margin between the two cards.

Q: Does the GTX 960 beat the Radeon Pro 450 in any test?

A: Yes, in Geekbench OpenCL the GTX 960 scores 18925 compared to 9002 for the Radeon Pro 450, a 52.4% difference. This is the GTX 960's only head-to-head win, but it is a substantial one.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Radeon Pro 450 scores 10518 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GTX 960 scores 9231. The AMD card leads by 13.9%.

Q: What is the overall average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Radeon Pro 450 has an average score of 10804 across all recorded benchmarks, placing it at the 49th percentile. The GTX 960 averages 9273 and sits at the 45th percentile.

Q: Are these cards close to their direct competitors?

A: Both are tightly clustered. The Radeon Pro 450's nearest rival is the Quadro K2200 at 10761, only 0.4% lower, and the GeForce MX350 at 10883, 0.7% higher. The GTX 960's nearest rival is the Radeon Vega 8 at 9221, 0.6% lower, and the GTX 465 at 9294, 0.2% higher.

Q: Which card has the higher pixel and texture throughput?

A: The GTX 960 has a pixel rate of 37.70 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 75.39 GTexel/s. The Radeon Pro 450 has a pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 32.00 GTexel/s. The GTX 960 is roughly three times faster in pixel rate and more than double in texture rate.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Metal test produces the clearest separation between the two cards. The Radeon Pro 450 scores 12893, and the GTX 960 scores 8773. That is a 47% gap, and it is the kind of margin that shows up in real Metal rendering workloads. The Radeon Pro 450's GCN 4.0 architecture appears to be better optimized for Apple's Metal API, and the data reflects that.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a narrower but still meaningful lead for the Radeon Pro 450. It scores 10518 against 9231 for the GTX 960, a 13.9% advantage. Vulkan is a lower-level API, and the Radeon Pro 450's newer architecture seems to extract more performance from it. The GTX 960 is not far behind, but it does not close the gap.

The Geekbench OpenCL result flips the script entirely. The GTX 960 scores 18925, more than double the Radeon Pro 450's 9002. That is a 52.4% difference in favor of the NVIDIA card. OpenCL compute workloads, which often scale with shader count and memory bandwidth, clearly favor the GTX 960. The NVIDIA card has 1024 shading units and 64 TMUs, while the Radeon Pro 450 has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs. The GTX 960 also has 32 ROPs compared to 16 on the Radeon Pro 450. Those hardware differences line up with the OpenCL result.

When looking at the overall average benchmark scores, the Radeon Pro 450 comes out ahead at 10804 versus 9273, but the win is largely driven by its strong Metal showing. The GTX 960's OpenCL dominance is equally important for compute-focused users. The two cards are not direct substitutes; they serve different workloads with different efficiency.

Specification Differences

The GTX 960 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the Radeon Pro 450 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. This is a significant generational difference. The Radeon Pro 450 packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². The GTX 960 has 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, with a density of 12.9M per mm². The AMD chip is much denser, which is expected given the smaller process node.

Clock speeds differ notably. The GTX 960 has a base clock of 1127 MHz and a boost clock of 1178 MHz. The Radeon Pro 450 does not have base or boost clocks listed in the database, so direct clock comparison is not possible. Memory clocks also differ: the Radeon Pro 450 runs its GDDR5 at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), while the GTX 960 runs at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Despite the lower memory clock, the Radeon Pro 450 has a memory bandwidth of 81.28 GB/s, while the GTX 960 reaches 112.2 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit memory bus and 2 GB of GDDR5.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward the GTX 960. It has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 450 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 960 also delivers 2.413 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and a pixel rate of 37.70 GPixel/s. The Radeon Pro 450 delivers 1,024.0 GFLOPS of FP32 and a pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s. The GTX 960's texture rate of 75.39 GTexel/s is more than double the Radeon Pro 450's 32.00 GTexel/s. The Radeon Pro 450 supports FP16 at 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1:1), while the GTX 960 has no listed FP16 capability.

Power and physical specs differ sharply. The Radeon Pro 450 has a TDP of 35 W and uses an MXM Module form factor. The GTX 960 has a TDP of 120 W, is a dual-slot card, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 300 W. The GTX 960 is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long. The Radeon Pro 450's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, while the GTX 960 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. The bus interface differs as well: the Radeon Pro 450 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GTX 960 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

Architecture Differences

The Radeon Pro 450 is built on GCN 4.0 with the Baffin chip, part of the Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series) generation. The GTX 960 uses Maxwell 2.0 with the GM206 chip, from the GeForce 900 generation. These are different architectural generations from different vendors, and the design priorities are visible in the benchmark results.

GCN 4.0 on 14 nm is a newer, more power-efficient architecture. The Radeon Pro 450's 35 W TDP compared to the GTX 960's 120 W TDP shows the efficiency advantage of the smaller process node. The Radeon Pro 450 also supports Vulkan 1.3, while the GTX 960 supports Vulkan 1.4. Both support DirectX 12, but the GTX 960 lists DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Radeon Pro 450 lists DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Radeon Pro 450's FP16 support at 1:1 ratio is a notable feature for compute workloads that use half precision. The GTX 960 has no FP16 capability listed. The Radeon Pro 450's memory bandwidth of 81.28 GB/s is lower than the GTX 960's 112.2 GB/s, but the AMD card's smaller power envelope makes it suitable for portable devices. The GTX 960's predecessor is the GeForce 700 series and its successor is the GeForce 10 series, while the Radeon Pro 450 has no listed predecessor or successor.

The transistor counts are nearly identical (3,000 million versus 2,940 million), but the die sizes are very different (123 mm² versus 228 mm²). This means the Radeon Pro 450 packs nearly the same number of transistors into roughly half the die area. The GTX 960 compensates with higher clocks and more execution units, but it pays for that with much higher power consumption.

The Verdict

The data points in two different directions, so the right choice depends entirely on the workload. For Metal-based rendering and Vulkan applications, the Radeon Pro 450 is the stronger card. Its 47% lead in Geekbench Metal and 13.9% lead in Geekbench Vulkan are clear and repeatable results. The 35 W TDP and MXM Module form factor also make it suitable for portable systems where power and space are limited.

For OpenCL compute, the GTX 960 is the obvious pick. Its 52.4% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the largest margin in any test, and its higher shader count, TMU count, ROP count, and memory bandwidth all support that result. The GTX 960 also offers more display outputs, a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, and a higher pixel rate of 37.70 GPixel/s. Its launch MSRP was 199 USD.

The average benchmark scores favor the Radeon Pro 450 (10804 versus 9273), and it sits at a higher percentile (49th versus 45th). But the GTX 960's OpenCL performance is so dominant that it cannot be ignored. Users who rely on OpenCL for rendering, simulation, or other compute tasks should choose the GTX 960. Users who work primarily in Metal environments or need a low-power mobile solution should choose the Radeon Pro 450. The two cards are not interchangeable; they are optimized for different ecosystems and different types of workloads.