AMD Radeon Pro 455 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 and AMD Radeon Pro 455 occupy different corners of the hardware landscape, but benchmark data reveals a clear split: the GTX 950 dominates compute-oriented APIs while the Radeon Pro 455 counters with a decisive win in Apple’s Metal framework. With average benchmark scores of 13,189 for the GTX 950 and 12,831 for the Radeon Pro 455, the two cards sit nearly level overall, yet their per-test results tell a story of divergent strengths tied directly to their architectures, power envelopes, and target platforms.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided result in this matchup belongs to the AMD Radeon Pro 455 in Geekbench Metal. There, the Radeon scores 15,916 against the GTX 950’s 7,172, a 54.9% margin in AMD’s favor. That is not a narrow edge; it is a near-doubling of performance, and it aligns with the Radeon Pro 455’s positioning as a Mac-oriented part, where Metal is the primary graphics API. The GTX 950’s score in the same test is its weakest across the three benchmarks, suggesting that Maxwell 2.0 hardware does not translate efficiently into Metal workloads despite the API’s cross-vendor support.

The NVIDIA card strikes back hard in the other two tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 950 posts 15,662 versus the Radeon Pro 455’s 10,336, a 51.5% advantage for NVIDIA. This flips the Metal result almost exactly, demonstrating that API choice can swing performance by more than half in either direction. The Vulkan test is closer but still decisively NVIDIA’s: the GTX 950 scores 16,734 against 12,240 for the Radeon Pro 455, a 36.7% lead. Across the three head-to-head benchmarks, the GTX 950 wins two and the Radeon Pro 455 wins one, but the average scores remain within 2.7% of each other (13,189 vs 12,831), underscoring how benchmark selection determines the narrative.

Looking at nearest rivals reinforces the middle-of-the-road positioning. The GTX 950’s closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480, averages 13,300, just 0.8% higher, while the AMD Radeon Pro 555X sits 1% above. The Radeon Pro 455’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590, matches its average score exactly (12,830 vs 12,831, a 0% delta), and the AMD FirePro W5100 is 0.1% behind. Neither card breaks into elite territory: the GTX 950 sits at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, the Radeon Pro 455 at the 52nd. These are mid-pack performers, and their head-to-head deltas reflect that parity.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different foundries, process nodes, and architectural generations. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 uses the GM206 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The die measures 228 mm² and packs 2,940 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 12.9 million per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro 455, by contrast, uses the Baffin chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, produced by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. Its die is far smaller at 123 mm², yet it holds 3,000 million transistors, giving a density of 24.4 million per mm² — nearly double that of the NVIDIA chip. This density advantage comes from the newer node, but it does not translate into raw performance superiority in most tests.

Both cards share 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units, so the core compute configuration is identical on paper. The divergence appears in the render output units: the GTX 950 has 32 ROPs, while the Radeon Pro 455 has only 16. This affects pixel throughput dramatically — the GTX 950 achieves 38.02 GPixel/s versus 13.68 GPixel/s for the Radeon Pro 455, a 2.8x difference. Texture rates also favor NVIDIA: 57.02 GTexel/s against 41.04 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance (FP32) is 1.825 TFLOPS for the GTX 950 and 1,313.3 GFLOPS for the Radeon Pro 455, a 39% gap. Notably, the Radeon Pro 455 offers FP16 at 1,313.3 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32), while the GTX 950 has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity and type — both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus — but bandwidth differs. The GTX 950’s memory runs at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), delivering 105.8 GB/s, while the Radeon Pro 455’s memory operates at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), yielding 81.28 GB/s. Clock speeds for the GTX 950 are specified as 1024 MHz base and 1188 MHz boost; the Radeon Pro 455 lists no base or boost clocks in the data. Power consumption is a major differentiator: the GTX 950 draws 90 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector with a 250 W suggested PSU, while the Radeon Pro 455 sips just 35 W TDP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The GTX 950 is a dual-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card measuring 202 mm (8 inches) in length; the Radeon Pro 455 is an MXM module with PCIe 3.0 x8 and dimensions dependent on the portable device.

API support also diverges. The GTX 950 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon Pro 455 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The difference in DirectX feature level and Vulkan version may contribute to the NVIDIA card’s Vulkan advantage. Display outputs differ as well: the GTX 950 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon Pro 455’s outputs are portable-device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 is the clear winner for general-purpose compute and cross-platform graphics APIs. Its 51.5% OpenCL lead and 36.7% Vulkan lead over the Radeon Pro 455 indicate that developers targeting those APIs will see substantially better performance on the NVIDIA card. The GTX 950 also wins on raw throughput metrics: higher pixel rate (38.02 GPixel/s vs 13.68 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (57.02 GTexel/s vs 41.04 GTexel/s), higher FP32 (1.825 TFLOPS vs 1,313.3 GFLOPS), and higher memory bandwidth (105.8 GB/s vs 81.28 GB/s). For desktop gaming, rendering, or compute workloads that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 950 is the superior choice. Its dual-slot form factor and 90 W TDP also suit a traditional desktop tower with a PSU rated at 250 W or more.

The AMD Radeon Pro 455 wins decisively in Geekbench Metal, scoring 15,916 against 7,172 — a 54.9% advantage. This makes it the obvious pick for macOS environments where Metal is the native graphics API. Its 35 W TDP and MXM module form factor, with no power connectors required, position it for notebooks and compact portable systems where power efficiency and space are at a premium. The Radeon Pro 455’s 1:1 FP16 support (1,313.3 GFLOPS) could benefit workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic, a feature the GTX 950 lacks entirely. The 14 nm process and smaller die (123 mm²) also suggest better thermal characteristics, though the data does not provide direct temperature measurements.

The average benchmark scores tell a nuanced story: the GTX 950’s 13,189 average is 2.8% higher than the Radeon Pro 455’s 12,831, but both cards hover near the 52-53rd percentile of all GPUs. Neither is a high-end performer; they are comparable mid-range parts whose suitability depends entirely on the software environment.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 averages 13,189 across its benchmarks, while the AMD Radeon Pro 455 averages 12,831, a difference of approximately 2.8% in NVIDIA’s favor.

Q: Why does the Radeon Pro 455 win the Metal benchmark by such a large margin?

A: In Geekbench Metal, the Radeon Pro 455 scores 15,916 versus the GTX 950’s 7,172, a 54.9% advantage. This aligns with the Radeon Pro 455’s design for Mac systems, where Metal is the primary graphics API.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 950 has a 90 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector with a 250 W suggested PSU. The Radeon Pro 455 has a 35 W TDP and no power connectors, making it far more power-efficient.

Q: Do both cards have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both the GTX 950 and Radeon Pro 455 have 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units. However, the GTX 950 has 32 ROPs while the Radeon Pro 455 has 16.

Q: Which card supports more advanced DirectX features?

A: The GTX 950 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Radeon Pro 455 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The GTX 950 also supports Vulkan 1.4 compared to the Radeon Pro 455’s Vulkan 1.3.

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

A: The GTX 950’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480, averages 13,300 (0.8% higher). The Radeon Pro 455’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590, averages 12,830 (essentially identical at 0% delta).

Specification Differences

• Process Node: 28 nm (GTX 950) vs 14 nm (Radeon Pro 455)
• Foundry: TSMC (GTX 950) vs GlobalFoundries (Radeon Pro 455)
• Transistors: 2,940 million (GTX 950) vs 3,000 million (Radeon Pro 455)
• Die Size: 228 mm² (GTX 950) vs 123 mm² (Radeon Pro 455)
• Transistor Density: 12.9M / mm² (GTX 950) vs 24.4M / mm² (Radeon Pro 455)
• Base Clock: 1024 MHz (GTX 950) vs not specified (Radeon Pro 455)
• Boost Clock: 1188 MHz (GTX 950) vs not specified (Radeon Pro 455)
• Memory Clock: 1653 MHz / 6.6 Gbps effective (GTX 950) vs 1270 MHz / 5.1 Gbps effective (Radeon Pro 455)
• Memory Bandwidth: 105.8 GB/s (GTX 950) vs 81.28 GB/s (Radeon Pro 455)
• ROPs: 32 (GTX 950) vs 16 (Radeon Pro 455)
• Pixel Rate: 38.02 GPixel/s (GTX 950) vs 13.68 GPixel/s (Radeon Pro 455)
• Texture Rate: 57.02 GTexel/s (GTX 950) vs 41.04 GTexel/s (Radeon Pro 455)
• FP32: 1.825 TFLOPS (GTX 950) vs 1,313.3 GFLOPS (Radeon Pro 455)
• FP16: not specified (GTX 950) vs 1,313.3 GFLOPS (1:1) (Radeon Pro 455)
• TDP: 90 W (GTX 950) vs 35 W (Radeon Pro 455)
• Slot Width: Dual-slot (GTX 950) vs MXM Module (Radeon Pro 455)
• Power Connectors: 1x 6-pin (GTX 950) vs None (Radeon Pro 455)
• Suggested PSU: 250 W (GTX 950) vs not specified (Radeon Pro 455)
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 (GTX 950) vs PCIe 3.0 x8 (Radeon Pro 455)
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 (GTX 950) vs Portable Device Dependent (Radeon Pro 455)
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_1) (GTX 950) vs 12 (12_0) (Radeon Pro 455)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 (GTX 950) vs 1.3 (Radeon Pro 455)
• Release Date: 2015-08-19 (GTX 950) vs 2016-10-29 (Radeon Pro 455)

The Verdict

Choose the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 if your workloads run on OpenCL or Vulkan. The data is unambiguous: 51.5% ahead in OpenCL and 36.7% ahead in Vulkan. It also offers higher memory bandwidth (105.8 GB/s vs 81.28 GB/s), double the ROPs (32 vs 16), and a higher pixel rate (38.02 GPixel/s vs 13.68 GPixel/s). This card suits desktop systems with a 250 W PSU and a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot, and its 90 W TDP is reasonable for a dual-slot card. The GTX 950’s higher average benchmark score (13,189 vs 12,831) and 53rd percentile ranking reinforce its slight overall edge.

Choose the AMD Radeon Pro 455 if Metal is your primary API or if power efficiency is critical. Its 54.9% Metal advantage over the GTX 950 is the single largest margin in this comparison, and that alone justifies its existence in Mac-centric environments. The 35 W TDP with no power connectors makes it ideal for portable devices, and the MXM module form factor fits thin laptops. Its FP16 support (1,313.3 GFLOPS 1:1) adds compute flexibility that the GTX 950 lacks. The Radeon Pro 455’s 52nd percentile ranking and near-identical average score to the GTX 950 mean you are not sacrificing much overall performance by choosing AMD’s part — as long as you stay within its API comfort zone.

The verdict hinges on context, not capability. Both cards are end-of-life products with comparable mid-pack performance, but the GTX 950 wins on compute throughput and API breadth, while the Radeon Pro 455 wins on power efficiency and Metal optimization. For a desktop gamer or OpenCL developer, the GTX 950 is the answer. For a Mac user or portable workstation, the Radeon Pro 455 is the only logical choice.