AMD Radeon Pro 555 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro 555 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 are two end-of-life graphics cards from different eras, built on fundamentally different architectures. The benchmark data shows a stark split: the AMD card dominates in one specific API test, while the NVIDIA card wins the other two, leading to a near-identical average score. The AMD Radeon Pro 555 averages 13,407 points, placing it in the 54th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 averages 13,189 points, sitting in the 53rd percentile. This 218-point difference (1.6%) is minuscule, making the choice between them entirely dependent on the user's software environment and workload.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two cards with contrasting strengths. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 is the better choice for general-purpose compute and Vulkan-based applications. It wins the OpenCL benchmark by a margin of 25.4% and the Vulkan benchmark by 26.5%, posting scores of 15,662 and 16,734, respectively. These are substantial leads that indicate a significant performance advantage in these environments.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555, however, is the definitive winner in Metal-based workloads. Its Geekbench Metal score of 16,236 is a massive 126.4% higher than the GTX 950's score of 7,172. This is not a marginal victory; it is a complete rout, suggesting the AMD card is vastly superior in applications that leverage Apple's Metal API.

For a user working primarily within a macOS ecosystem using Metal-accelerated applications, the AMD Radeon Pro 555 is the only logical choice based on this data. Conversely, for users in a Windows or Linux environment relying on OpenCL or Vulkan, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 offers a decisive performance advantage. The overall average scores are nearly identical, but the workload-specific results are so divergent that the "average" is almost meaningless. You are not buying an average; you are buying a specific set of capabilities.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark results reveal a clear delineation of strengths, with each card winning in distinct software environments.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555 secures its single victory in the Geekbench Metal test. Its score of 16,236 is more than double the GTX 950's 7,172. This suggests that for applications optimized for Metal—typically found in creative, professional, and productivity software on Apple platforms—the Radeon Pro 555 holds a commanding lead. The data indicates this is a categorical win for AMD.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 wins the other two benchmarks. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 15,662 against the AMD card's 11,682, a lead of 25.4%. This is a strong showing for a card with an older architecture, indicating that its compute capabilities are well-suited to the OpenCL framework. In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the GTX 950 again takes the lead with a score of 16,734 versus 12,303, a 26.5% advantage. This demonstrates a robust performance profile for modern cross-platform graphics APIs, making it a more versatile option for gaming and other Vulkan-based applications.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on contrasting architectures and manufacturing processes, which explains their divergent benchmark results. The AMD Radeon Pro 555 uses the Polaris 21 chip based on the GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This newer process allows for a smaller die size of 123 mm² and a higher transistor density of 24.4 million per mm², packing 3,000 million transistors. In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 uses the GM206 chip based on the older Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This results in a much larger die size of 228 mm² and a lower transistor density of 12.9 million per mm², despite having a similar total of 2,940 million transistors.

The memory subsystems are also notably different, though both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The GTX 950 operates its memory at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 105.8 GB/s. The Radeon Pro 555's memory runs at a slower effective speed of 5.1 Gbps, providing a lower bandwidth of 81.60 GB/s. This 22.8% bandwidth disadvantage for the AMD card could impact performance in bandwidth-sensitive tasks.

Core configurations are similar in one respect, with both cards featuring 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units (TMUs). However, the Radeon Pro 555 has only 16 render output units (ROPs), while the GTX 950 has 32. This doubling of ROPs explains the GTX 950's higher pixel rate of 38.02 GPixel/s versus the AMD card's 13.60 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA card also has a higher texture rate at 57.02 GTexel/s compared to 40.80 GTexel/s. The GTX 950 also shows a higher FP32 performance at 1.825 TFLOPS, while the AMD card delivers 1,305.6 GFLOPS. The AMD card supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, a feature not listed for the GTX 950. The GTX 950 also has a higher TDP of 90 W and requires a 6-pin power connector, while the Radeon Pro 555 is a 75 W integrated part with no power connectors.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555 has a higher average benchmark score of 13,407, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950's 13,189. This places the AMD card in the 54th percentile and the NVIDIA card in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs.

Q: Is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 better for Vulkan applications?

A: Yes, the data shows a significant advantage. The GTX 950 scores 16,734 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, which is 26.5% higher than the Radeon Pro 555's score of 12,303.

Q: The AMD Radeon Pro 555 wins by a large margin in one test. Which one?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555 wins the Geekbench Metal test with a score of 16,236. This is a 126.4% advantage over the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950's score of 7,172.

Q: How do the cards compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 has a higher memory bandwidth of 105.8 GB/s, while the AMD Radeon Pro 555 offers 81.60 GB/s. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What are the process nodes for these GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The 14 nm process allows for a smaller die size of 123 mm² compared to the GTX 950's 228 mm².

Q: Which card has more ROPs, and what is the impact?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 has 32 ROPs, double the 16 found on the AMD Radeon Pro 555. This contributes to the GTX 950's much higher pixel rate of 38.02 GPixel/s, compared to 13.60 GPixel/s for the AMD card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data reveals a fascinating split, with each card winning by a wide margin in its preferred environment. The most dramatic result is in the Geekbench Metal test, where the AMD Radeon Pro 555 scores 16,236, a staggering 126.4% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950's 7,172. This is more than a doubling of performance and shows a complete architectural advantage for AMD in this specific API. This single result is the primary driver of the AMD card's higher average score.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950, however, dominates the compute-oriented tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 950 scores 15,662, beating the Radeon Pro 555's 11,682 by a significant 25.4%. This demonstrates that despite its older 28 nm process, the Maxwell architecture is highly efficient in OpenCL workloads. The result is even more pronounced in the Vulkan test, where the GTX 950 scores 16,734 against the AMD card's 12,303, a 26.5% lead. This shows that the GTX 950 is a more capable card for modern, cross-platform graphics APIs.

Looking at the rival landscape reinforces these findings. The AMD Radeon Pro 555's nearest rival is the NVIDIA P106-090, which has an average score of 13,470 and is 0.5% higher. This indicates that the Radeon Pro 555 is positioned in a competitive mid-range segment. The GTX 950's closest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 555X, which scores 13,321, a 1% difference. This shows that the two cards in this comparison are not only similar in average performance to each other, but also to a direct refresh of the AMD card. The data suggests that in a head-to-head average, they are virtually tied, but the software-specific wins are so large that the average does not represent the user experience in any single application. The choice is not about which card is "better" overall, but which API and use case is more important to the user.