AMD Radeon Pro 455 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a clear split: the AMD Radeon Pro 455 dominates in Metal workloads, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M takes OpenCL and Vulkan. The most dramatic margin is in Geekbench Metal, where AMD scores 15,916 against NVIDIA's 8,319, a 91.3% advantage. This is not a marginal lead; it nearly doubles NVIDIA's result. For any application that relies on Apple's Metal API, the Radeon Pro 455 is the decisive choice.

However, the NVIDIA GPU strikes back in Geekbench OpenCL with 12,769 versus AMD's 10,336, a 19.1% deficit for AMD. That is a substantial reversal, showing that NVIDIA's older Kepler architecture still holds a significant edge in general-purpose compute through OpenCL. The Vulkan results are much closer: NVIDIA edges out AMD 12,696 to 12,240, a mere 3.6% difference. Here, the two GPUs are effectively in the same performance class, with NVIDIA holding a slight but consistent lead.

Looking at the aggregate average benchmark score, AMD's 12,831 versus NVIDIA's 11,261 puts AMD roughly 14% ahead overall. This aligns with the percentile rankings: AMD sits at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, while NVIDIA is at the 50th. The delta is small, but it consistently favors AMD in the composite. The nearest rivals for AMD include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12,830, 0% delta) and the AMD FirePro W5100 (12,847, -0.1%), meaning the Radeon Pro 455 sits right at the center of a tight cluster. NVIDIA's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11,228, 0.3% delta) and the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225, 0.3% delta), indicating the GTX 780M is slightly above those workstation cards but below AMD's mobile offering.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. AMD's Radeon Pro 455 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. NVIDIA's GTX 780M uses the GK104 chip on the older Kepler architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is stark: 14 nm versus 28 nm, which explains why AMD packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm². NVIDIA's larger die of 294 mm² holds 3,540 million transistors, but the density drops to 12.0 million per mm². That is roughly half the density, a direct consequence of the older manufacturing process.

Core configuration also diverges sharply. AMD fields 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. NVIDIA counters with double the shading units at 1,536, plus 128 TMUs and 32 ROPs. This explains NVIDIA's higher theoretical throughput: 2.448 TFLOPS FP32 versus AMD's 1,313.3 GFLOPS. NVIDIA also achieves a pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 102.0 GTexel/s, both well above AMD's 13.68 GPixel/s and 41.04 GTexel/s. In raw rasterization throughput, NVIDIA is the clear winner on paper.

Memory subsystems tell a similar story. NVIDIA has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. AMD has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 81.28 GB/s. NVIDIA's bandwidth is nearly double, which matters for high-resolution textures and heavy fill-rate workloads. Clock speeds are also in NVIDIA's favor: base clock at 771 MHz, boost at 797 MHz, and memory at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), versus AMD's memory at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) with no listed base or boost clock. AMD's memory clock is marginally higher per pin, but the narrower bus negates that advantage.

API support differs in key ways. AMD supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The DirectX version difference (12_0 vs 11_0) indicates AMD has a more complete feature set for modern Windows titles, while NVIDIA's Vulkan support is slightly older. Power consumption also diverges: AMD is rated at 35 W TDP, NVIDIA at 122 W. That is a 3.5x difference, making AMD far more efficient per watt, though NVIDIA's higher TDP buys it raw performance headroom.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: pick the AMD Radeon Pro 455 if your workload is Metal-centric or power-sensitive; pick the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M if you need maximum raw OpenCL throughput or larger memory capacity. The benchmark split is unambiguous. AMD wins Metal by 91.3%, a dominant margin that cannot be ignored for macOS or Metal-based applications. NVIDIA wins OpenCL by 19.1% and Vulkan by 3.6%, showing strength in cross-platform compute.

The average benchmark score favors AMD: 12,831 versus 11,261, a 13.9% lead. The percentile ranking (52nd vs 50th) confirms AMD sits slightly higher in the global GPU distribution. However, NVIDIA's 4 GB memory versus AMD's 2 GB is a hard spec advantage for memory-heavy tasks like large frame buffers or multi-monitor setups. AMD's 35 W TDP versus NVIDIA's 122 W makes AMD the obvious choice for thin-and-light laptops or battery-sensitive environments. For gaming or general compute where OpenCL dominates, NVIDIA's higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth (160.0 GB/s vs 81.28 GB/s) give it the edge. For professional Mac-centric workflows, AMD's Metal performance is the deciding factor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Metal benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 455 scores 15,916 in Geekbench Metal, which is 91.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M's 8,319. This is the largest performance gap between the two.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 12,769 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the AMD Radeon Pro 455's 10,336 by 19.1%. NVIDIA has the clear advantage here.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 455 has an average benchmark score of 12,831, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M averages 11,261. AMD leads by about 14% overall.

Q: Which GPU has more memory and bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Pro 455 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 81.28 GB/s.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 455 has a TDP of 35 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M has a TDP of 122 W. AMD is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 455 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). AMD has the more complete DirectX 12 feature set.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon Pro 455 wins in: Metal workloads (91.3% faster), overall average benchmark score (12,831 vs 11,261), power efficiency (35 W vs 122 W TDP), transistor density (24.4M/mm² vs 12.0M/mm²), newer process node (14 nm vs 28 nm), newer Vulkan support (1.3 vs 1.2.175), and DirectX 12 feature level (12_0 vs 11_0).

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M wins in: OpenCL workloads (19.1% faster), Vulkan workloads (3.6% faster), raw shading throughput (1,536 vs 768 shading units), texture rate (102.0 vs 41.04 GTexel/s), pixel rate (25.50 vs 13.68 GPixel/s), FP32 compute (2.448 TFLOPS vs 1,313.3 GFLOPS), memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB), memory bandwidth (160.0 GB/s vs 81.28 GB/s), and ROP count (32 vs 16).

The use-case split is clear: AMD for Metal-based creative apps, low-power laptops, or modern API features; NVIDIA for OpenCL compute, Vulkan gaming, or memory-intensive rendering. The Vulkan margin is narrow enough that neither GPU has a decisive claim there, but NVIDIA's edge is consistent.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 455 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M |

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

| Chip | Baffin | GK104 |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 3,000 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 24.4M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 771 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 797 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) | 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 160.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1,536 |

| TMUs | 48 | 128 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 13.68 GPixel/s | 25.50 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 41.04 GTexel/s | 102.0 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,313.3 GFLOPS | 2.448 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,313.3 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 35 W | 122 W |

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

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

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2016-10-29 | 2013-05-10 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Predecessor | Not listed | GeForce 600M |

| Successor | Not listed | GeForce 800M |

The specification sheet reinforces the benchmark story. AMD's advantage lies in manufacturing efficiency and modern API support, while NVIDIA holds the edge in raw throughput, memory capacity, and bandwidth. The release dates show a three-year gap (2016 vs 2013), explaining why AMD has the newer process node and feature set. Both are end-of-life products, so availability may vary, but the data gives a clear performance profile for each.