AMD Radeon Pro 455 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 455 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A are both end-of-life mobile graphics modules aimed at portable workstations, yet benchmark results show they are not direct equivalents. The data indicates a single head-to-head comparison, with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A taking the win in the Geekbench OpenCL test by a margin of 13.9%. However, the AMD Radeon Pro 455 has a broader benchmark profile, including Metal and Vulkan scores, and a higher average benchmark score overall, suggesting a different performance character across various compute APIs.

Where Each One Wins

The performance split between these two GPUs is defined by API support and the breadth of testing, rather than a simple speed advantage. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A wins the only shared benchmark test, which is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the GTX 960A scores 11,998 points, while the Radeon Pro 455 scores 10,336 points. This represents a 13.9% lead for the NVIDIA part, making it the clear choice for workloads that rely heavily on OpenCL compute.

However, the AMD Radeon Pro 455 expands the picture. It has benchmark scores in three different APIs: Geekbench Metal at 15,916 points, Geekbench Vulkan at 12,240 points, and Geekbench OpenCL at 10,336 points. The GTX 960A only has a recorded score for OpenCL, meaning it has no public benchmark data for Metal or Vulkan. This is a significant differentiator. On Apple platforms, where Metal is the primary graphics and compute API, the Radeon Pro 455 is the only one of the two with a measurable performance profile. The Pro 455’s Vulkan score of 12,240 also exceeds the GTX 960A’s OpenCL score, suggesting that in Vulkan-based applications, the AMD part could potentially outperform the NVIDIA part, though no direct head-to-head Vulkan test exists.

The average benchmark score further complicates the simple win/loss narrative. The Radeon Pro 455 has an average score of 12,831 points, while the GTX 960A averages 11,998 points. This means that across all recorded benchmarks, the AMD GPU is approximately 6.9% faster on average. The GTX 960A’s single OpenCL win is substantial, but the Pro 455’s performance in Metal and Vulkan gives it a broader and higher overall performance envelope. For users working in heterogeneous environments, the Radeon Pro 455 likely offers more consistent performance across modern compute APIs, while the GTX 960A is the stronger dedicated OpenCL performer.

The Verdict

The verdict from the data is clear: pick the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A if your primary workload is OpenCL compute, as it holds a definitive 13.9% lead over the Radeon Pro 455 in the only direct comparison. The GTX 960A also sits in the 51st percentile of all GPUs, while the Pro 455 sits in the 52nd percentile, putting them in nearly the same overall performance class. However, the Radeon Pro 455 is the better choice for a broader range of applications, particularly those using Metal or Vulkan. Its Metal score of 15,916 is its strongest result, and its Vulkan score of 12,240 is higher than the GTX 960A’s OpenCL score.

The data shows that the Radeon Pro 455 has a higher average benchmark score (12,831 vs 11,998), which is a strong indicator of overall versatility. The GTX 960A is a one-trick pony in this comparison, excelling in OpenCL but lacking any recorded performance in the other two APIs. The Radeon Pro 455 is also built on a more modern 14 nm process compared to the GTX 960A’s 28 nm, which may contribute to its broader API support and superior average performance. Ultimately, the GTX 960A wins the specific OpenCL battle, but the Radeon Pro 455 wins the broader performance war. For macOS users or developers targeting Vulkan, the Pro 455 is the only viable option based on available data. For pure OpenCL number-crunching, the GTX 960A is the data-driven winner.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A is the clear victor. The GTX 960A scores 11,998 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro 455 scores 10,336 points. This yields a delta percentage of -13.9% for the AMD part, meaning the GTX 960A is 13.9% faster in this specific test. This is a decisive margin, indicating that for OpenCL-based compute tasks, the NVIDIA GPU has a meaningful performance advantage.

The Radeon Pro 455’s best benchmark result is in Geekbench Metal, where it scores 15,916 points. This is significantly higher than its own OpenCL score and higher than the GTX 960A’s OpenCL score by a wide margin. While there is no direct Metal comparison available for the GTX 960A, the Pro 455’s Metal result suggests that on Apple platforms, the AMD GPU is substantially more capable. Similarly, the Pro 455’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 12,240 points is 2.0% higher than the GTX 960A’s OpenCL score, indicating that in Vulkan workloads, the AMD part would likely outperform the NVIDIA part, even though they were not directly tested against each other in that API.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the Radeon Pro 455’s overall edge. With an average of 12,831 points, the Pro 455 is 6.9% faster than the GTX 960A’s average of 11,998 points. This is because the Pro 455 has three strong benchmark results, while the GTX 960A has only one. The GTX 960A’s OpenCL win is real, but it is isolated. The data suggests that the GTX 960A is the better OpenCL device, but the Radeon Pro 455 is the better all-around GPU, especially in modern API environments.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 11,998 points, defeating the AMD Radeon Pro 455’s score of 10,336 points by 13.9%.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 455 have any benchmark advantage over the GTX 960A?

A: Yes, the Radeon Pro 455 has a higher average benchmark score of 12,831 points compared to the GTX 960A’s 11,998 points. It also has a strong Geekbench Metal score of 15,916 and a Vulkan score of 12,240, while the GTX 960A has no recorded Metal or Vulkan scores.

Q: What is the performance gap in the only shared benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 960A leads by a delta of -13.9%, meaning it is 13.9% faster than the Radeon Pro 455 in that specific workload.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of overall performance percentile?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 455 is in the 52nd percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A is in the 51st percentile, indicating they are very close in overall global performance ranking.

Q: Which GPU is better for Metal-based applications?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 455 is the only one with a recorded Metal benchmark score, achieving 15,916 points in Geekbench Metal. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A has no Metal benchmark data, so the Pro 455 is the clear choice for Metal workloads.

Q: Is the GTX 960A faster in Vulkan than the Radeon Pro 455?

A: The data does not include a direct Vulkan comparison. However, the Radeon Pro 455 scores 12,240 points in Geekbench Vulkan, which is higher than the GTX 960A’s OpenCL score of 11,998, suggesting the AMD GPU may be faster in Vulkan, though this is not a direct test.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The AMD Radeon Pro 455 is based on the Baffin chip, using the GCN 4.0 architecture, and is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a die size of 123 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A uses the GM107 chip with the Maxwell architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It has 1,870 million transistors on a larger die size of 148 mm², yielding a lower transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The smaller process node gives the AMD GPU a significant efficiency and density advantage.

The compute capabilities differ as well. The Radeon Pro 455 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The GTX 960A has fewer shading units at 640, fewer TMUs at 40, but the same 16 ROPs. The AMD GPU’s FP32 performance is 1,313.3 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA GPU’s FP32 performance is 1.505 TFLOPS, which is higher. However, the AMD GPU also supports FP16 at 1,313.3 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, while the GTX 960A has no recorded FP16 capability. In terms of API support, the Radeon Pro 455 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part has a newer Vulkan version, but the AMD part has a higher DirectX feature level.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across several key specifications, with only a few shared traits. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, but the AMD Radeon Pro 455 has a memory clock of 1270 MHz, translating to 5.1 Gbps effective and a bandwidth of 81.28 GB/s. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A has a memory clock of 1253 MHz, translating to 5 Gbps effective and a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s. The AMD GPU has a slight memory bandwidth advantage of 1.09 GB/s.

Clock speeds also differ. The GTX 960A has a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost clock of 1176 MHz, while the Radeon Pro 455 has no recorded base or boost clock. The pixel rate favors the NVIDIA GPU, with 18.82 GPixel/s compared to the AMD GPU’s 13.68 GPixel/s. The texture rate also favors the GTX 960A, with 47.04 GTexel/s versus 41.04 GTexel/s. The power draw is notably different, with the Radeon Pro 455 rated at 35 W TDP and the GTX 960A rated at 75 W TDP. Both use an MXM Module slot width and have no power connectors, with display outputs described as portable device dependent. The bus interface differs, with the AMD GPU using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the NVIDIA GPU using MXM-B (3.0). The release dates also differ, with the GTX 960A released on 2015-03-12 and the Radeon Pro 455 released on 2016-10-29.