AMD Radeon Pro 455 vs NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unambiguous picture when these two GPUs are placed side by side. In the shared test suite, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM dominates every recorded metric, with margins that are not merely incremental but transformative. The most striking result appears in Geekbench OpenCL, where the RTX 3050 OEM scores 60,740 against the AMD Radeon Pro 455's 10,336. That represents a 487.7% advantage, a gap that indicates the two cards are operating in entirely different performance tiers. The Vulkan test tells a similar story, though with a slightly narrower margin: 57,103 for the NVIDIA part versus 12,240 for the AMD part, a 366.5% lead.

To contextualize these figures, the database places the RTX 3050 OEM at the 57th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15,199. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 7600 at 15,171 (a 0.2% difference), the AMD Radeon 680M at 15,270 (0.5% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580 at 15,283 (0.5% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060 at 15,290 (0.6% lower). These deltas are tiny, suggesting the RTX 3050 OEM sits in a tightly packed cluster of mid-range performers. The AMD Radeon Pro 455, by contrast, resides at the 52nd percentile with an average score of 12,831. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 at 12,830 (0% difference), the AMD FirePro W5100 at 12,847 (0.1% lower), the AMD Radeon 740M at 12,870 (0.3% lower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 at 12,773 (0.5% higher). The percentile gap of five points between the two cards understates the practical difference; the raw scores reveal a chasm.

The head-to-head data records two wins for the NVIDIA card and zero for the AMD card. This is not a case of one card winning compute-heavy workloads while the other excels at graphics. The RTX 3050 OEM simply outclasses the Radeon Pro 455 across every measured dimension. The OpenCL result is particularly instructive because OpenCL is a cross-vendor API, meaning neither manufacturer enjoys a native advantage. The 487.7% delta in that test suggests fundamental architectural superiority rather than software optimization quirks. Vulkan, another vendor-neutral API, confirms the pattern with a 366.5% edge. These are not benchmark artifacts; they are consistent, repeatable measurements that point to a hardware generation gap.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting a half-decade of semiconductor progress. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM uses the GA106 chip built on Ampere architecture, fabricated on an 8 nm process at Samsung. The die measures 276 mm² and contains 12,000 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. The AMD Radeon Pro 455, by contrast, relies on the Baffin chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its die is substantially smaller at 123 mm², housing 3,000 million transistors for a density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The density difference alone is revealing: the NVIDIA chip packs nearly twice as many transistors per unit area, which translates directly into more compute resources.

The compute configuration reinforces the gap. The RTX 3050 OEM carries 2,304 shading units, 72 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. It also includes 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, features that the Radeon Pro 455 completely lacks. The AMD card offers 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no ray tracing or tensor hardware at all. The shading unit count alone shows a 3:1 ratio in favor of NVIDIA. Pixel throughput tells a similar story: 56.16 GPixel/s for the RTX 3050 OEM versus 13.68 GPixel/s for the Radeon Pro 455. Texture rate differs proportionally: 126.4 GTexel/s against 41.04 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance, the raw measure of compute capability, stands at 8.087 TFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 1,313.3 GFLOPS (approximately 1.3 TFLOPS) for AMD. Both cards offer 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratios, but the absolute numbers remain separated by a factor of roughly six.

Memory architecture adds another layer of divergence. The RTX 3050 OEM uses 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 455 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but bandwidth drops to 81.28 GB/s. The memory clock difference is stark: 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective for NVIDIA versus 1270 MHz with 5.1 Gbps effective for AMD. The RTX 3050 OEM also supports PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Radeon Pro 455 uses the older PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. In API support, NVIDIA offers DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while AMD provides DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6. The NVIDIA card includes dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, marking a generational feature set that the GCN 4.0 architecture cannot match.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM delivers 8.087 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the AMD Radeon Pro 455 provides 1,313.3 GFLOPS. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA card scores 60,740 versus 10,336 for AMD, a 487.7% difference.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 455 support ray tracing or tensor operations?

A: No. The Radeon Pro 455 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX 3050 OEM includes 18 ray tracing cores and 72 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM uses 8 GB of GDDR6 with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 455 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with 81.28 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the NVIDIA card's newer memory technology provides nearly three times the bandwidth.

Q: What percentile ranking does each card hold in the database?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM ranks at the 57th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 15,199. The Radeon Pro 455 ranks at the 52nd percentile, with an average score of 12,831.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX 3050 OEM achieves 43.5 million transistors per square millimeter on an 8 nm Samsung process. The Radeon Pro 455 achieves 24.4 million per square millimeter on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The RTX 3050 OEM was released in January 2022, while the Radeon Pro 455 was released in October 2016.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. Process node: 8 nm for NVIDIA versus 14 nm for AMD. Transistor count: 12,000 million versus 3,000 million. Die size: 276 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density: 43.5 million per mm² versus 24.4 million per mm². Shading units: 2,304 versus 768. TMUs: 72 versus 48. ROPs: 32 versus 16. Ray tracing cores: 18 versus none. Tensor cores: 72 versus none. Memory size: 8 GB versus 2 GB. Memory type: GDDR6 versus GDDR5. Memory bandwidth: 224.0 GB/s versus 81.28 GB/s. Pixel rate: 56.16 GPixel/s versus 13.68 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 126.4 GTexel/s versus 41.04 GTexel/s. FP32 performance: 8.087 TFLOPS versus 1,313.3 GFLOPS. TDP: 130 W versus 35 W. Slot width: dual-slot versus MXM module. Power connectors: 1x 8-pin versus none. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a versus portable device dependent. DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_0). Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.3. Release date: January 2022 versus October 2016.

The Verdict

The data leaves no room for ambiguity. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 455 in every benchmark the database records. With a 487.7% lead in OpenCL and a 366.5% lead in Vulkan, the performance gap is so large that the Radeon Pro 455 cannot be considered a competitor in any compute or graphics scenario. The RTX 3050 OEM also brings architectural advantages that the AMD card simply lacks: dedicated ray tracing cores, tensor cores, a newer process node, and more than four times the memory capacity. The Radeon Pro 455's only meaningful advantages are its 35 W TDP, which is substantially lower than the 130 W of the NVIDIA card, and its MXM module form factor, which suits portable or embedded applications. However, the database records no benchmark where the Radeon Pro 455 wins. The RTX 3050 OEM is the superior choice for anyone prioritizing performance, features, or longevity.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 3050 OEM wins in compute-intensive workloads. Its 8.087 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, combined with 126.4 GTexel/s texture rate and 56.16 GPixel/s pixel rate, positions it for gaming, 3D rendering, and general GPU-accelerated tasks. The 18 ray tracing cores enable hardware ray tracing, and the 72 tensor cores accelerate AI inference and DLSS-style workloads. The 8 GB GDDR6 memory with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth provides ample headroom for modern game textures and large datasets. The 57th percentile ranking places it alongside the AMD Radeon RX 7600 and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2060, both respected mid-range performers.

The Radeon Pro 455 wins in power efficiency and form factor. Its 35 W TDP is less than a third of the NVIDIA card's 130 W, making it suitable for thermal-constrained environments. The MXM module design allows integration into laptops and compact systems where the dual-slot RTX 3050 OEM would not fit. Its 52nd percentile ranking, while lower, still places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 and GTX 670, indicating respectable performance for its era. The 2 GB GDDR5 memory and 81.28 GB/s bandwidth suffice for lighter workloads, and the lack of external power connectors simplifies installation.

In direct competition, however, there is no scenario where the recorded data favors the Radeon Pro 455. The RTX 3050 OEM wins both shared benchmarks, holds a higher percentile, and offers a feature set that the older GCN 4.0 architecture cannot match. The Radeon Pro 455 remains relevant only in niche applications requiring its low power draw or MXM form factor. For any task that demands performance, the choice is clear: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 OEM dominates the comparison.