AMD Radeon Pro 555 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 555 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions aimed at portable workstations and laptops, yet they represent fundamentally different design philosophies from their respective manufacturers. The database contains one direct benchmark comparison between these two parts, alongside a broader set of individual scores that paint a more complete picture of their relative standing. This analysis walks through the recorded measurements, contextualizes them against the nearest competing hardware, and breaks down the architectural and specification differences that explain the observed behavior.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head test recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and it produces a narrow result. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11,998, while the AMD Radeon Pro 555 scores 11,682. That gives the NVIDIA part a 2.6% advantage, a margin that is real but far from decisive. In practical terms, this means the GTX 960A completes the OpenCL workload roughly three percent faster than the Radeon Pro 555, a difference that would be imperceptible in most real-world tasks.

However, the broader benchmark record shows that the AMD part has a wider range of tested workloads. The Radeon Pro 555 also has a Geekbench Metal score of 16,236 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 12,303. The GTX 960A has no recorded Metal or Vulkan scores in the database, which limits the direct comparison to OpenCL only. That absence is itself informative: the AMD part supports a broader set of modern API tests, and its Vulkan result of 12,303 is notably higher than its own OpenCL score of 11,682, suggesting that the architecture responds well to the newer driver paths.

Looking at the average benchmark scores across all recorded tests, the AMD Radeon Pro 555 averages 13,407, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A averages 11,998. That is a 11.7% gap in favor of the AMD part, driven entirely by the additional Metal and Vulkan results. The single OpenCL head-to-head favors NVIDIA, but the multi-API average favors AMD by a meaningful margin.

The nearest rival data provides additional context. The Radeon Pro 555 sits at the 54th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with its closest competitors being the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (average 13,376, 0.2% slower), the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356, 0.4% slower), and the AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354, 0.4% slower). On the NVIDIA side, the GTX 960A sits at the 51st percentile, with its nearest rivals being the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (11,960, 0.3% slower), the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT (11,842, 1.3% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (11,680, 2.7% slower). These percentile rankings place the AMD part slightly higher in the overall distribution, even though the direct OpenCL test favors NVIDIA.

The Verdict

The data supports a nuanced conclusion. If the workload is strictly OpenCL-based, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A is the faster card by 2.6%. That is a small but measurable win, and it aligns with the GTX 960A’s higher pixel rate and texture rate, which are 18.82 GPixel/s and 47.04 GTexel/s respectively, compared to the Radeon Pro 555’s 13.60 GPixel/s and 40.80 GTexel/s.

However, if the application uses Metal or Vulkan, the AMD Radeon Pro 555 is the only one of the two with recorded scores in those APIs, and its numbers are strong: 16,236 in Metal and 12,303 in Vulkan. The Metal score in particular is far above the OpenCL results of either card, suggesting that the Radeon Pro 555 is substantially better optimized for Apple’s graphics stack, which is relevant given its placement in the Radeon Pro Mac series.

The average benchmark score tells the same story from a different angle. The Radeon Pro 555’s average of 13,407 is 11.7% higher than the GTX 960A’s 11,998. The percentile rankings reinforce this: 54th versus 51st. For a user who cares about the widest range of API support and the highest average performance, the AMD part is the better choice. For a user who specifically needs the fastest OpenCL execution, the NVIDIA part wins.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11,998 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 2.6% higher than the AMD Radeon Pro 555’s 11,682.

Q: Does the AMD card have any benchmark scores that the NVIDIA card lacks?

A: Yes. The Radeon Pro 555 has a Geekbench Metal score of 16,236 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 12,303. The GTX 960A has no recorded Metal or Vulkan scores.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555 averages 13,407 across all recorded tests, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A averages 11,998.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall GPU percentile ranking?

A: The Radeon Pro 555 sits at the 54th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 960A sits at the 51st percentile.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 960A has a pixel rate of 18.82 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Radeon Pro 555’s 13.60 GPixel/s.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The Radeon Pro 555 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every core specification category. The Radeon Pro 555 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the GTX 960A uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The transistor counts reflect the process gap: the AMD chip contains 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, for a density of 12.6 million per square millimeter.

The memory subsystems are similar in capacity and type, both using 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus. The bandwidth is close but not identical: the Radeon Pro 555 achieves 81.60 GB/s, while the GTX 960A achieves 80.19 GB/s. The memory clock is also slightly different, with the AMD part running at 1275 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA.

The clock speeds differ significantly. The GTX 960A has a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost clock of 1176 MHz. The Radeon Pro 555 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, which makes direct frequency comparison impossible. The shading unit count favors AMD: 768 shading units versus 640. The texture mapping units also favor AMD: 48 versus 40. Both have 16 ROPs.

The power and form factor differences are notable. Both are rated at 75 W TDP, but the Radeon Pro 555 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with no power connectors, while the GTX 960A is an MXM module with no power connectors either. The bus interface differs: the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA part uses MXM-B (3.0). The display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for both.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is substantial. The AMD Radeon Pro 555 uses the Polaris 21 chip based on GCN 4.0 architecture, part of the Radeon Pro Mac (500 Series) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell architecture, part of the GeForce 900A generation.

The API support reflects the architectural generation. The Radeon Pro 555 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 higher Vulkan revision on the NVIDIA side is notable, though the AMD card has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score while NVIDIA does not.

The FP32 compute output favors NVIDIA: the GTX 960A delivers 1.505 TFLOPS, while the Radeon Pro 555 delivers 1,305.6 GFLOPS, which is approximately 1.306 TFLOPS. The AMD card also has a listed FP16 performance of 1,305.6 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio, while the NVIDIA card has no recorded FP16 data.

The texture and pixel rates favor NVIDIA as well. The GTX 960A achieves 47.04 GTexel/s and 18.82 GPixel/s, while the Radeon Pro 555 achieves 40.80 GTexel/s and 13.60 GPixel/s. These are the raw throughput numbers that likely explain the OpenCL win for NVIDIA, as the Maxwell architecture’s higher clock speeds and fill rates compensate for its lower shader count.

The release dates place the two parts in different eras. The GTX 960A was released in March 2015, while the Radeon Pro 555 was released in June 2017. The NVIDIA part has a recorded predecessor, the GeForce 800A, while the AMD part has no recorded predecessor or successor. Both are marked end-of-life in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A wins in raw OpenCL throughput, pixel fill rate, texture fill rate, and FP32 compute. Its 18.82 GPixel/s pixel rate is 38% higher than the Radeon Pro 555’s 13.60 GPixel/s, and its 47.04 GTexel/s texture rate is 15% higher. These are the metrics that matter for traditional rasterization and compute workloads that map well to the Maxwell architecture’s design.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555 wins in the broader benchmark picture. Its Metal score of 16,236 is the single highest recorded result for either card, and its Vulkan score of 12,303 exceeds both cards’ OpenCL results. The higher average benchmark score of 13,407 versus 11,998, combined with the 54th percentile ranking versus 51st, indicates that the AMD part is more versatile across modern API paths.

The process node advantage is also on AMD’s side. The 14 nm GlobalFoundries process versus 28 nm TSMC means the AMD chip packs more transistors into a smaller die: 3,000 million on 123 mm² versus 1,870 million on 148 mm². That density explains why the AMD card can offer 768 shading units versus 640 while maintaining the same 75 W TDP.

For a user running OpenCL-only applications, the GTX 960A is the better choice based on the 2.6% direct win. For a user targeting Metal or Vulkan workloads, or who wants the highest average performance across multiple test suites, the Radeon Pro 555 is the superior part. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a workload-dependent split. The AMD card is the better all-rounder, and the NVIDIA card is the better specialist in one specific API.