AMD Radeon Pro 555 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the AMD Radeon Pro 555 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is decisively one-sided. In the two recorded head-to-head tests, the NVIDIA GPU wins both, and by substantial margins that place it in a completely different performance tier. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER’s victory in Geekbench OpenCL is particularly stark: it scores 43,875 against the Radeon Pro 555’s 11,682. That is a delta of 73.4% in favor of the NVIDIA part, meaning the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers roughly 3.75 times the raw compute throughput in this workload. Such a gap is not a matter of fine tuning or driver optimization; it reflects a fundamental difference in hardware capability.

The Vulkan result tells a similar story. Here, the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER records 50,519 points, while the Radeon Pro 555 manages 12,303. The delta is 75.6%, again favoring NVIDIA. In practical terms, the GTX 1650 SUPER is more than four times faster in this API, which is a decisive advantage for any application that leverages Vulkan for rendering or compute. Across both tests, the NVIDIA card wins 2 out of 2, and there are no benchmark categories in which the AMD part emerges ahead. The average benchmark score for the Radeon Pro 555 is 13,407, placing it at the 54th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER, by contrast, has an average score of 11,047, which sits at the 50th percentile. This apparent contradiction, where the AMD card has a higher percentile despite losing head-to-head, is explained by the fact that the NVIDIA card’s average includes a broader set of tests, including older DirectX and Passmark workloads where its scores are low relative to its modern compute performance.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the Radeon Pro 555’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA P106-090, which scores 13,470 and is 0.5% ahead. The AMD Radeon HD 8950M is 0.2% behind, and the AMD Radeon RX 5500M and AMD FirePro M6100 are both 0.4% behind. This clustering shows that the Radeon Pro 555 is firmly in a mid-range bracket for its era. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER, meanwhile, sits near the AMD Radeon RX 550, which is 0.2% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX350, which is 1.5% behind. The presence of high-end workstation parts like the RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q in its rival list, at 0.4% ahead, is a quirk of the averaging methodology rather than an indication of comparable performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs could not be more different in their design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro 555 is built on the Polaris 21 chip, which uses the GCN 4.0 architecture. It is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 3,000 million transistors packed into a die size of 123 mm². The transistor density is 24.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER, on the other hand, uses the TU116 chip based on the Turing architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 12 nm process. It contains 6,600 million transistors on a much larger 284 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 23.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip has more than double the transistor count and a die that is more than twice the area, yet the density is slightly lower due to the larger, more complex design.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Radeon Pro 555 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. In every one of these categories, the NVIDIA part has roughly 1.6 to 2 times the hardware. The pixel rate for the NVIDIA card is 55.20 GPixel/s against 13.60 GPixel/s for the AMD card, a 4x advantage. The texture rate is 138.0 GTexel/s versus 40.80 GTexel/s, again a 3.4x difference. Floating point performance follows suit: the GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 4.416 TFLOPS FP32, while the Radeon Pro 555 delivers 1,305.6 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA card also has a 2:1 FP16 ratio, giving 8.832 TFLOPS, whereas the AMD part has a 1:1 ratio, meaning FP16 and FP32 are identical at 1,305.6 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture is another dividing line. The Radeon Pro 555 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 1275 MHz and 5.1 Gbps effective, yielding 81.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on the same 128-bit bus, but with memory at 1500 MHz and 12 Gbps effective, it achieves 192.0 GB/s. That is more than double the bandwidth, which is critical for modern games and compute workloads that are memory-bound. The NVIDIA card also supports a higher DirectX feature level: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (12_0) for the AMD card, and a newer Vulkan version, 1.4 versus 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins in every benchmark category where both are measured. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 73.4% delta means the NVIDIA card is the clear choice for any OpenCL compute workload, from physics simulations to video encoding and general-purpose GPU computing. In Geekbench Vulkan, the 75.6% delta reinforces this, showing that the NVIDIA card is not only faster in compute but also in modern graphics APIs that are increasingly used in game engines and professional rendering tools.

Given that the AMD Radeon Pro 555 loses both head-to-head tests, its only advantage lies in its form factor and power profile. It is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, and no dedicated slot width, meaning it is designed for portable devices where space and power are at a premium. Its bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8, which is half the width of the NVIDIA card’s PCIe 3.0 x16. The Radeon Pro 555 is also from an older generation, released in 2017, and is end-of-life. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER, released in 2019, is a dual-slot card with a 100 W TDP, a single 6-pin power connector, and a suggested PSU of 300 W. It is a desktop card meant for a full-size chassis.

In a use-case split, the Radeon Pro 555 is appropriate for thin-and-light laptops or compact all-in-one systems where the GPU is soldered to the motherboard and must operate within a strict thermal envelope. Its 2 GB of memory is sufficient for basic display output and light 2D acceleration, but it will struggle with modern 3D games or compute tasks. The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER, with its 4 GB of GDDR6 and 4.4 TFLOPS, is a capable entry-level desktop GPU for 1080p gaming and accelerated content creation. The benchmark scores reflect this: the NVIDIA card is in a different performance class, and the only reason to choose the AMD part is if the system form factor demands it.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The process node is 14 nm for AMD versus 12 nm for NVIDIA. The transistor count is 3,000 million versus 6,600 million. Die size is 123 mm² versus 284 mm². The AMD card has no base or boost clock listed, while the NVIDIA card has a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1725 MHz. Memory type is GDDR5 versus GDDR6, and memory size is 2 GB versus 4 GB. Bandwidth is 81.60 GB/s versus 192.0 GB/s. Shading units are 768 versus 1,280, TMUs are 48 versus 80, and ROPs are 16 versus 32.

The pixel rate is 13.60 GPixel/s versus 55.20 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 40.80 GTexel/s versus 138.0 GTexel/s. FP32 is 1,305.6 GFLOPS versus 4.416 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 1,305.6 GFLOPS (1:1) versus 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1). TDP is 75 W versus 100 W. Slot width is IGP versus dual-slot, and power connectors are none versus 1x 6-pin. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are portable device dependent versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The NVIDIA card has dimensions of 229 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 35 mm in width; the AMD card has none listed. The release dates are 2017-06-04 for AMD and 2019-11-21 for NVIDIA. The NVIDIA card has a launch MSRP of 159 USD. The AMD card has no launch MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is significantly faster, scoring 43,875 versus 11,682 for the AMD Radeon Pro 555, a 73.4% delta.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The NVIDIA card has 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR6, while the AMD card has 81.60 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 555 have any form factor advantages?

A: Yes, it is an IGP with a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, making it suitable for portable devices, whereas the NVIDIA card is a dual-slot desktop card with a 100 W TDP and a 6-pin connector.

Q: What is the FP32 performance of each card?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER delivers 4.416 TFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon Pro 555 delivers 1,305.6 GFLOPS.

Q: Which card supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_0).

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555 has an average score of 13,407, while the NVIDIA card has an average of 11,047, but the NVIDIA card wins all head-to-head tests because its average includes older DirectX and Passmark workloads.