AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A and AMD Radeon Pro 450 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions aimed at different priorities, and the benchmark data reveals a clear split between raw compute performance and API versatility. In the only directly comparable test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the GTX 960A scores 11,998, while the Radeon Pro 450 scores 9,002. This represents a 33.3% advantage for the NVIDIA part in raw compute throughput, a substantial margin that defines the head-to-head comparison. However, the Radeon Pro 450 posts additional scores in other APIs, showcasing its broader software ecosystem, even if its average benchmark score across all tests falls behind.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is decisively won by the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A. The GTX 960A delivers a score of 11,998, which is 33.3% higher than the Radeon Pro 450’s 9,002. This is not a marginal victory; it is a dominant performance gap that places the two GPUs in different performance tiers for general-purpose compute workloads. When contextualized against their respective peer groups, the GTX 960A’s score sits at the 51st percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 450’s OpenCL result contributes to a lower overall standing.

The Radeon Pro 450, however, demonstrates strength in other benchmark environments. It achieves a Geekbench Metal score of 12,893 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,518. While the GTX 960A has no comparable scores in these APIs, the Radeon’s Metal result is notably higher than its own OpenCL score, indicating that AMD’s architecture is particularly well-optimized for Apple’s graphics API. This is significant because the Radeon Pro 450 is part of the Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series) generation, suggesting its intended ecosystem favors Metal. The Vulkan score of 10,518 also surpasses its OpenCL figure, showing that the GPU’s compute potential is better realized through modern, low-level APIs.

Looking at the broader context of the GTX 960A’s OpenCL victory, the NVIDIA card outperforms its nearest rivals in that test. It edges out the GeForce GTX 1080 by 0.3%, the Radeon RX 6500 XT by 1.3%, the GeForce GTX 1660 by 2.7%, and the Radeon RX 7800 XT by 3.2%, based on average scores. This places the GTX 960A at the top of its immediate competitive cluster, despite being a much older and lower-power part. Conversely, the Radeon Pro 450’s average benchmark score of 10,804 places it in a different competitive bracket, where it trails the GeForce MX350 by 0.7%, but leads the Quadro K2200 by 0.4%, the GeForce GTX 560 Ti by 1.1%, and the Radeon RX 6600S by 1.7%. The data suggests that while the GTX 960A dominates in raw OpenCL compute, the Radeon Pro 450’s strength lies in its API coverage and platform-specific optimizations.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear verdict: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A is the superior choice for compute-intensive tasks that rely on OpenCL, offering a 33.3% performance advantage over the AMD Radeon Pro 450. For users prioritizing raw numerical throughput in applications that utilize OpenCL, the GTX 960A is unequivocally the stronger performer. Its score of 11,998 not only beats the Radeon Pro 450 but also outpaces several modern desktop GPUs in its nearest rival list, including the GTX 1080 and RX 7800 XT by small margins. The GTX 960A achieves this with a higher pixel rate (18.82 GPixel/s vs. 12.80 GPixel/s) and texture rate (47.04 GTexel/s vs. 32.00 GTexel/s), along with a significantly higher FP32 throughput of 1.505 TFLOPS versus 1,024.0 GFLOPS.

However, the Radeon Pro 450 is not without its merits. Its Geekbench Metal score of 12,893 is the highest single benchmark result for either GPU, indicating that in Metal-based workloads, it would likely outperform the GTX 960A, which has no Metal score to compare. The Radeon Pro 450 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the GTX 960A only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. The architectural differences matter: the Radeon Pro 450 is built on a 14 nm process with 3,000 million transistors, while the GTX 960A uses a 28 nm process with 1,870 million transistors. The Radeon’s smaller die (123 mm² vs. 148 mm²) and higher transistor density (24.4M / mm² vs. 12.6M / mm²) suggest a more modern design, even if its peak compute is lower.

The verdict is conditional. If the workload is OpenCL-heavy, the GTX 960A wins decisively. If the workload is Metal-centric or benefits from newer API features, the Radeon Pro 450 offers advantages that the GTX 960A cannot match. The GTX 960A’s higher TDP of 75 W versus 35 W for the Radeon Pro 450 also indicates that the NVIDIA card consumes more power to achieve its performance, which could be a consideration for thermally constrained mobile platforms.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A wins in OpenCL compute performance. Its score of 11,998 is 33.3% higher than the Radeon Pro 450’s 9,002, making it the clear choice for applications that leverage OpenCL for general-purpose GPU computing. This includes tasks like video encoding, scientific simulations, and certain rendering workloads that are optimized for OpenCL. The GTX 960A also wins on raw fill rates, with a pixel rate of 18.82 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 47.04 GTexel/s, both substantially higher than the Radeon Pro 450’s 12.80 GPixel/s and 32.00 GTexel/s. This translates to better performance in traditional rasterization workloads, even if the benchmark data only shows OpenCL scores.

The AMD Radeon Pro 450 wins in API coverage and platform-specific performance. Its Metal score of 12,893 is the standout result, and its Vulkan score of 10,518 and OpenCL score of 9,002 show that it can operate across three major compute APIs. The GTX 960A only has an OpenCL score, with no Metal or Vulkan results, meaning its performance in those APIs is unverified. For users working in macOS environments where Metal is the primary API, the Radeon Pro 450 is the only choice with a proven score. The Radeon Pro 450 also wins on power efficiency, with a TDP of 35 W compared to the GTX 960A’s 75 W. This makes it a better fit for ultra-thin laptops or systems where battery life and thermal management are critical. The Radeon Pro 450 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) with full feature level support, whereas the GTX 960A only supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which may limit its compatibility with certain modern games or applications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11,998 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 33.3% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 450’s score of 9,002.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 450 have any benchmark scores in APIs other than OpenCL?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro 450 has a Geekbench Metal score of 12,893 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10,518. The GTX 960A only has an OpenCL score.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 has a transistor density of 24.4M / mm², while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A has a density of 12.6M / mm². The Radeon Pro 450’s density is nearly double that of the GTX 960A.

Q: How do their pixel rates compare?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A has a pixel rate of 18.82 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 450’s pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A has a TDP of 75 W, while the AMD Radeon Pro 450 has a TDP of 35 W. The Radeon Pro 450 consumes less than half the power of the GTX 960A.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of DirectX?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 450 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The Radeon Pro 450’s DirectX 12 feature level is higher.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between the two GPUs is stark, reflecting their different design philosophies and manufacturing generations. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A is built on the Maxwell architecture, specifically the GM107 chip, using a 28 nm process at TSMC. This older process node results in a die size of 148 mm² and a transistor count of 1,870 million, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M / mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro 450 uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Baffin chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This newer process allows for a smaller die of 123 mm² while packing 3,000 million transistors, achieving a much higher transistor density of 24.4M / mm².

The memory subsystems are similar in capacity and type, with both GPUs featuring 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The Radeon Pro 450 has a slight bandwidth advantage at 81.28 GB/s versus the GTX 960A’s 80.19 GB/s. Both GPUs have identical shading unit counts (640), TMUs (40), and ROPs (16), but their clock speeds and resulting throughputs differ significantly. The GTX 960A operates at a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost clock of 1176 MHz, while the Radeon Pro 450’s base and boost clocks are not listed. The GTX 960A’s higher clocks contribute to its superior pixel rate (18.82 GPixel/s) and texture rate (47.04 GTexel/s), as well as its FP32 performance of 1.505 TFLOPS. The Radeon Pro 450, despite having the same core counts, achieves only 12.80 GPixel/s and 32.00 GTexel/s, with an FP32 throughput of 1,024.0 GFLOPS. Notably, the Radeon Pro 450 offers FP16 performance at 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the GTX 960A has no listed FP16 capability.

The API support also diverges. The GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon Pro 450 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Radeon’s higher DirectX 12 feature level indicates better support for modern gaming features. Both GPUs use MXM Module slot widths, but the GTX 960A uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, whereas the Radeon Pro 450 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The GTX 960A has no power connectors listed, while the Radeon Pro 450’s power connector configuration is null, but their TDPs differ significantly: 75 W for the NVIDIA part versus 35 W for the AMD part. Finally, the GTX 960A was released in March 2015 as part of the GeForce 900A generation, succeeding the GeForce 800A, while the Radeon Pro 450 was released in October 2016 as part of the Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series).