AMD Radeon Pro 555 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M and the AMD Radeon Pro 555 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they target different priorities. Based on the benchmark data, the GTX 965M is the clear performance leader in cross-platform compute, winning both head-to-head tests. However, the Radeon Pro 555 holds a distinct advantage in Apple’s Metal API and offers a more modern manufacturing process with superior transistor density. The data shows a 54th percentile ranking for the Radeon Pro 555 versus a 56th percentile for the GTX 965M, indicating that while the NVIDIA part edges slightly ahead in overall standing, the AMD part remains highly competitive in its specific ecosystem. This analysis breaks down where each GPU wins, the core architectural differences, and which user should pick which, strictly from the provided facts.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M has a higher average benchmark score of 14,404, compared to the AMD Radeon Pro 555’s 13,407. This places the GTX 965M at the 56th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon Pro 555 sits at the 54th percentile.

Q: How does the GTX 965M perform in OpenCL versus the Radeon Pro 555?

A: The GTX 965M wins the OpenCL test decisively, scoring 14,509 against the Radeon Pro 555’s 11,682. This represents a 24.2% advantage for the NVIDIA GPU.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 555 win any benchmark tests?

A: The head-to-head data shows the Radeon Pro 555 winning 0 tests. However, it has a separate Geekbench Metal score of 16,236, which is higher than any score recorded by the GTX 965M in the provided benchmarks, though the NVIDIA GPU does not have a Metal score listed for direct comparison.

Q: What are the transistor density differences between the two chips?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555, built on a 14 nm process, has a transistor density of 24.4M / mm². The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, built on a 28 nm process, has a significantly lower density of 13.1M / mm².

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD Radeon Pro 555 supports Vulkan 1.3. Both support DirectX 12, but the GTX 965M supports version 12_1, whereas the Radeon Pro 555 supports 12_0.

Q: How close is the GTX 965M to its nearest rival in terms of average score?

A: The GTX 965M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11, with an average score of 14,385. The delta is just 0.1%, making the two virtually identical in overall compute performance.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M dominates in raw compute throughput across the shared benchmark suite. It wins both head-to-head tests, taking the OpenCL crown with a 24.2% lead and the Vulkan test with a 16.2% lead. This makes it the unequivocal choice for general-purpose compute workloads and applications that rely on these cross-vendor APIs. The GTX 965M also claims a higher average benchmark score (14,404 vs. 13,407) and a higher percentile ranking (56th vs. 54th), suggesting it is the more powerful GPU overall in non-Apple-specific environments.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555’s wins are more specialized. Its standout result is the Geekbench Metal score of 16,236, which is its highest benchmark output and exceeds the GTX 965M’s OpenCL and Vulkan scores. This indicates a strong optimization for Apple’s Metal graphics API, making it the superior choice for macOS applications that leverage Metal. Additionally, the Radeon Pro 555 has a lower TDP of 75 W, whereas the GTX 965M has no TDP listed, suggesting a potential efficiency advantage for the AMD part in constrained thermal environments, though this cannot be quantified without a figure for the NVIDIA GPU.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing eras. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM204 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip packs 5,200 million transistors into a large 398 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.1M / mm². The AMD Radeon Pro 555 utilizes the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Polaris 21 chip, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a more advanced 14 nm process. It contains 3,000 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 24.4M / mm².

These architectural choices lead to different resource allocations. The GTX 965M features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The Radeon Pro 555, by contrast, has fewer of each: 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This disparity in ROP count is stark and directly impacts pixel throughput. The GTX 965M also supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon Pro 555 is limited to DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the AMD GPU uniquely offers FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, a feature absent from the NVIDIA part’s listed specs.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key divergences beyond the core counts. The GTX 965M has base and boost clocks of 924 MHz and 950 MHz, respectively, while the Radeon Pro 555 lists no base or boost clock speeds. Memory configurations are similar, with both using 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the AMD part has a slightly higher memory clock of 1,275 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) versus the NVIDIA’s 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). This yields a marginal bandwidth advantage for the Radeon Pro 555: 81.60 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s.

The most significant differences lie in throughput and physical specifications. The GTX 965M achieves a pixel rate of 30.40 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 60.80 GTexel/s, roughly double the Radeon Pro 555’s 13.60 GPixel/s and 40.80 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the GTX 965M delivers 1.946 TFLOPS, while the Radeon Pro 555 outputs 1,305.6 GFLOPS (or 1.3056 TFLOPS). The form factors also differ: the GTX 965M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface, whereas the Radeon Pro 555 is an IGP with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The AMD part has a listed TDP of 75 W, while the NVIDIA part does not have a TDP specified. Neither GPU requires external power connectors, and both have display outputs that are portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results tell a clear story of NVIDIA’s compute supremacy. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 965M scores 14,509 against the Radeon Pro 555’s 11,682. This is a 24.2% delta, the largest margin in any shared test. The Vulkan test narrows the gap slightly, with the GTX 965M scoring 14,299 and the Radeon Pro 555 scoring 12,303, a 16.2% advantage. These results align with the specification differences: the GTX 965M has 33% more shading units (1,024 vs. 768) and double the ROPs (32 vs. 16), which translates directly into higher fill rates and compute output.

The Radeon Pro 555’s best showing is in the Metal API, where it scores 16,236. This is notably higher than its own OpenCL and Vulkan scores, indicating that the GPU is heavily optimized for Apple’s framework. However, since the GTX 965M does not have a Metal score listed, this cannot be a direct head-to-head comparison. In the broader context, the GTX 965M’s average benchmark score of 14,404 is 997 points higher than the Radeon Pro 555’s 13,407. The NVIDIA GPU also sits above its nearest rivals—the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385, 0.1% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14,373, 0.2% delta)—while the Radeon Pro 555 is closely matched with the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13,376, 0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356, 0.4% delta).

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for users prioritizing raw performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M wins. It holds a 24.2% lead in OpenCL and a 16.2% lead in Vulkan, and its average score of 14,404 outpaces the Radeon Pro 555’s 13,407. With double the ROPs, a higher pixel rate (30.40 GPixel/s vs. 13.60 GPixel/s), and greater FP32 throughput (1.946 TFLOPS vs. 1,305.6 GFLOPS), the GTX 965M is the stronger choice for gaming, general compute, and any workload that scales with shading units and fill rate. Its 56th percentile ranking versus the Radeon Pro 555’s 54th percentile reinforces this conclusion.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555, however, is not without its merits. Its Geekbench Metal score of 16,236 is the single highest benchmark result recorded for either GPU, making it the preferable option for macOS users running Metal-accelerated applications. Its smaller 123 mm² die on a 14 nm process with a 24.4M / mm² transistor density indicates a more modern, power-efficient design, and its 75 W TDP suggests it may be better suited for thin-and-light systems. For users locked into Apple’s ecosystem, the Radeon Pro 555’s Metal performance and efficiency make it a sensible pick. For everyone else, the GTX 965M’s superior compute scores and broader API support (DirectX 12_1, Vulkan 1.4) make it the definitive winner in this comparison.