AMD Radeon Pro 455 vs AMD Radeon RX 550 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in direct comparisons: the AMD Radeon RX 550 takes all three head-to-head benchmark wins. The largest margin comes in the Geekbench Metal test, where the RX 550 scores 20,838 against the Radeon Pro 455's 15,916. That is a 23.6% advantage for the RX 550, a substantial gap that indicates a significant difference in graphics API performance under Metal.

The OpenCL results are closer but still favor the RX 550. It scores 11,063 versus 10,336 for the Pro 455, a 6.6% lead. This narrower margin suggests that in compute workloads using OpenCL, the two cards are more evenly matched, though the RX 550 still comes out ahead. The Vulkan test is nearly a tie: the RX 550 scores 12,270 and the Pro 455 scores 12,240, a mere 0.2% difference. In practice, that is within noise, so for Vulkan workloads the two cards should be considered equivalent.

Looking at average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the Pro 455 actually posts a higher average of 12,831, while the RX 550 averages 11,075. That seems contradictory given the head-to-head results, but it is explained by the different benchmark suites available in the database for each card. The Pro 455 has three Geekbench results (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan), while the RX 550 has those three plus a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 result of 127, which drags its average down. The Pro 455's average sits at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 550 sits at the 50th percentile. Both are mid-pack performers, but the Pro 455 is slightly better positioned relative to the entire GPU landscape.

For context, the Pro 455's average score of 12,831 places it within 0.1% of the AMD FirePro W5100 (12,847) and within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon 740M (12,870). It is also effectively tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12,830) and slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (12,773) by 0.5%. The RX 550's average of 11,075 is within 0.1% of both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (both 11,088), and it is 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047). The AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225) is 1.3% ahead of the RX 550.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture and are built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, so the underlying design philosophy is identical. The chips differ, however. The Radeon Pro 455 uses the Baffin chip, while the RX 550 uses the Lexa chip. Baffin is the larger die at 123 mm² with 3,000 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm². Lexa is smaller at 103 mm² with 2,200 million transistors, resulting in a lower density of 21.4 million per mm².

The Pro 455 has more execution resources: 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and the same 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders and TMUs, the RX 550 runs at higher clocks. Its base clock is 1100 MHz with a boost of 1183 MHz, while the Pro 455 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. Memory clocks also differ: the RX 550 runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the Pro 455 runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective).

Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The RX 550's higher memory clock yields a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s, whereas the Pro 455 achieves 81.28 GB/s. That is a 27% bandwidth advantage for the RX 550, which helps explain its Metal and OpenCL wins. Pixel rate favors the RX 550 at 18.93 GPixel/s versus 13.68 GPixel/s for the Pro 455. Texture rate is closer: the Pro 455 posts 41.04 GTexel/s, while the RX 550 posts 37.86 GTexel/s. The Pro 455's higher TMU count gives it a small texture throughput edge despite lower clocks. FP32 compute is also slightly higher on the Pro 455 at 1,313.3 GFLOPS versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS for the RX 550. Both have FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32.

Power and physical design differ significantly. The Pro 455 is rated at 35 W TDP and comes as an MXM Module, meaning it is designed for laptops or compact systems. The RX 550 is a dual-slot card with a 50 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Neither card requires external power connectors. The RX 550 has a recorded length of 145 mm (5.7 inches), while the Pro 455 has no length listed. The Pro 455's display outputs are portable-device dependent, while the RX 550 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, so API compatibility is identical. The RX 550 was released later, on April 19, 2017, versus October 29, 2016 for the Pro 455. The RX 550 lists a predecessor of Arctic Islands and a successor of Vega; the Pro 455 lists neither. Both are end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 550 is the clear winner in Metal workloads. Its 23.6% lead in Geekbench Metal is the largest margin in the entire comparison, and that test is often representative of macOS graphics performance. If the use case involves Metal-accelerated applications, the RX 550 is the stronger choice by a wide margin.

The RX 550 also wins in OpenCL compute, though by a smaller 6.6% margin. For general-purpose GPU compute tasks such as rendering, physics simulation, or data processing that use OpenCL, the RX 550 offers a measurable but modest advantage. The two cards are effectively tied in Vulkan, with the RX 550 leading by only 0.2%. For Vulkan-based games or applications, users should expect identical performance.

The Pro 455 has its own strengths. Its higher texture rate of 41.04 GTexel/s and higher FP32 throughput of 1,313.3 GFLOPS suggest it can handle texture-heavy workloads and raw compute slightly better than the RX 550, even if the benchmark results do not reflect that in the tested scenarios. Its lower 35 W TDP also makes it more power-efficient, which is critical for compact systems where thermal headroom is limited. The Pro 455's MXM form factor means it is intended for modular laptop designs, not standard desktop slots, so its "win" is in niche mobile or embedded applications.

The RX 550's higher memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s is a decisive advantage for bandwidth-bound workloads, such as high-resolution textures or large data sets. Its dual-slot desktop design with standard display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0b, DisplayPort 1.4a) makes it far easier to deploy in a typical desktop build.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550, with a score of 20,838 versus 15,916 for the Radeon Pro 455. That is a 23.6% difference.

Q: Are the two cards similar in Vulkan performance?

A: Yes, they are effectively identical. The RX 550 scores 12,270 and the Pro 455 scores 12,240, a 0.2% gap.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 455 has 768 shading units, while the RX 550 has 512. The Pro 455 also has 48 TMUs versus 32 on the RX 550.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 550 has 112.0 GB/s, while the Pro 455 has 81.28 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What power connector does each card require?

A: Neither card requires external power connectors. The Pro 455 is rated at 35 W TDP, and the RX 550 is rated at 50 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Radeon Pro 455 has a higher average of 12,831, placing it at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs. The RX 550 averages 11,075, at the 50th percentile. This is because the RX 550's average includes a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 127, which lowers its mean.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in the following recorded fields:

• Chip: Baffin (Pro 455) versus Lexa (RX 550)
• Generation: Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series) versus Polaris (RX 500)
• Transistors: 3,000 million versus 2,200 million
• Die size: 123 mm² versus 103 mm²
• Transistor density: 24.4M / mm² versus 21.4M / mm²
• Base clock: Not recorded versus 1100 MHz
• Boost clock: Not recorded versus 1183 MHz
• Memory clock: 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective)
• Memory bandwidth: 81.28 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s
• Shading units: 768 versus 512
• TMUs: 48 versus 32
• Pixel rate: 13.68 GPixel/s versus 18.93 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 41.04 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,313.3 GFLOPS versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS
• FP16: 1,313.3 GFLOPS (1:1) versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 35 W versus 50 W
• Slot width: MXM Module versus Dual-slot
• Suggested PSU: Not recorded versus 250 W
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
• Length: Not recorded versus 145 mm (5.7 inches)
• Release date: October 29, 2016 versus April 19, 2017
• Predecessor: Not recorded versus Arctic Islands
• Successor: Not recorded versus Vega
• Launch MSRP: Not recorded versus 79 USD

Both cards share: AMD as manufacturer, GCN 4.0 architecture, 14 nm process, GlobalFoundries foundry, 2 GB GDDR5 memory, 128-bit bus, 16 ROPs, PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3, no power connectors, and end-of-life production status.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice for most users: the AMD Radeon RX 550 wins every head-to-head benchmark and offers substantially higher memory bandwidth, higher clocks, and a standard desktop form factor. If your workload relies on Metal, OpenCL, or Vulkan, the RX 550 is the better performer, with the Metal advantage being particularly large at 23.6%. Its 50 W TDP is modest, and the launch MSRP was 79 USD, but the performance per watt is still respectable given its benchmark wins.

The Radeon Pro 455 is not without merit, but its advantages are narrower and more specialized. It has more shading units and TMUs, which give it a higher texture rate (41.04 GTexel/s) and higher FP32 compute (1,313.3 GFLOPS). Its 35 W TDP makes it more power-efficient, and its MXM form factor is suited for modular laptops or compact embedded systems where a dual-slot desktop card cannot fit. Its higher average benchmark score (12,831 versus 11,075) is partly an artifact of the RX 550's additional 3DMark result, but it does indicate that the Pro 455 is not a weak card overall.

For a desktop builder, the RX 550 is the obvious pick. It is faster in all tested APIs, has more memory bandwidth, and can be installed in any standard PCIe slot with a 250 W PSU. The Pro 455 should only be chosen if the system requires an MXM module or if power draw is an absolute constraint. In that case, the Pro 455's 35 W TDP and competitive OpenCL and Vulkan scores make it a viable option, though users should expect lower Metal performance. The verdict is clear: the RX 550 is the better all-round card, while the Pro 455 serves a niche mobile or low-power role.