AMD Radeon Pro 555X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M and AMD Radeon Pro 555X are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they target different eras and priorities. The GTX 965M, built on NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture, is a 2015-era part that still delivers competitive raw compute scores, while the Radeon Pro 555X, a 2018 GCN 4.0 part, focuses on efficiency and features like 1:1 FP16 throughput. Benchmark data shows the GTX 965M holds a clear lead in cross-platform APIs, yet the Radeon Pro 555X counters with more memory and a newer process node. This analysis breaks down where each GPU wins based strictly on the provided specifications and benchmark results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M scores an average of 14,404 points, while the AMD Radeon Pro 555X averages 13,321 points. This places the GTX 965M at the 56th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 54th percentile for the Radeon Pro 555X.

Q: How do they compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The GTX 965M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 14,509 versus 12,628 for the Radeon Pro 555X. This represents a 14.9% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: Is the Radeon Pro 555X better in any benchmark?

A: The head-to-head data shows the GTX 965M winning both available tests (OpenCL and Vulkan). However, the Radeon Pro 555X has a separate Geekbench Metal score of 14,479, which is a test the NVIDIA GPU does not have a listed result for.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The GTX 965M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon Pro 555X has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on the same 128-bit bus, but with higher bandwidth at 94.08 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller manufacturing process node?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555X uses a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The smaller node contributes to the AMD chip's higher transistor density of 24.4M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm².

Q: What is the DirectX feature level support for each?

A: The GTX 965M supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1, while the Radeon Pro 555X supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the NVIDIA part supports Vulkan 1.4 compared to Vulkan 1.3 for the AMD part.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M is the clear winner in raw cross-platform compute performance. It takes both head-to-head benchmark victories: a 14.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL (14,509 vs. 12,628) and an 11.2% lead in Geekbench Vulkan (14,299 vs. 12,855). This makes it the stronger choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan APIs, which are common in cross-platform rendering and compute workloads.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555X, despite losing both direct comparisons, wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. It offers double the VRAM (4 GB vs. 2 GB) and higher memory bandwidth (94.08 GB/s vs. 80.19 GB/s). This gives it an edge for workloads that are memory-bound or require larger framebuffers. Additionally, the Radeon Pro 555X has a distinct advantage in Metal performance, scoring 14,479 in Geekbench Metal — a benchmark the GTX 965M has no listed result for, suggesting the AMD part is better suited for macOS environments where Metal is the primary graphics API.

In terms of efficiency, the Radeon Pro 555X wins on process technology. Its 14 nm node versus 28 nm means it packs 24.4M transistors per mm² compared to 13.1M, and it does so with a lower transistor count (3,000 million vs. 5,200 million) on a smaller die (123 mm² vs. 398 mm²). This suggests the AMD part is more power-efficient per unit of silicon, though the GTX 965M still outputs higher absolute performance in the tested APIs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0, while the AMD Radeon Pro 555X uses the Polaris 21 chip based on GCN 4.0. This architectural split explains most of their behavioral differences in the benchmark data.

Maxwell 2.0 is designed around a large number of execution units: 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. This gives the GTX 965M high theoretical throughput of 1.946 TFLOPS FP32, 60.80 GTexel/s texture rate, and 30.40 GPixel/s pixel rate. The architecture favors raw shader count and is known for efficient scheduling, which shows in its strong OpenCL and Vulkan results.

GCN 4.0, by contrast, uses a different compute-unit design, with the Radeon Pro 555X featuring 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This results in lower theoretical rates: 1,393.2 GFLOPS FP32, 43.54 GTexel/s, and 14.51 GPixel/s. However, the architecture supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio — meaning FP16 throughput equals FP32 at 1,393.2 GFLOPS — which is a feature the GTX 965M does not list. The Radeon Pro 555X also has a higher memory clock at 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the NVIDIA part.

The manufacturing process is another key architectural difference. The GTX 965M is built on a 28 nm node at TSMC, with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The Radeon Pro 555X uses a 14 nm node at GlobalFoundries, with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The Radeon Pro 555X is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a slot width of IGP and a TDP of 75 W, while the GTX 965M is an MXM module with no listed TDP. The NVIDIA part uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, whereas the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Specification Differences

The most significant specification gap is memory capacity and bandwidth. The GTX 965M comes with 2 GB of GDDR5, while the Radeon Pro 555X doubles that to 4 GB. The AMD part also has higher effective memory speed, with 94.08 GB/s bandwidth versus 80.19 GB/s for the NVIDIA part. Both use a 128-bit memory bus.

Compute units differ substantially. The GTX 965M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 555X has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the NVIDIA part higher pixel and texture rates: 30.40 GPixel/s and 60.80 GTexel/s versus 14.51 GPixel/s and 43.54 GTexel/s respectively. FP32 performance follows the same trend, with the GTX 965M at 1.946 TFLOPS versus 1,393.2 GFLOPS for the AMD part.

Clock speeds are only partially specified. The GTX 965M lists a base clock of 924 MHz and boost clock of 950 MHz. The Radeon Pro 555X does not list base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective). The GTX 965M's memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

API support differs in two key areas: DirectX and Vulkan. The GTX 965M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon Pro 555X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The physical form factor also differs: the NVIDIA part is an MXM module with MXM-B (3.0) interface, while the AMD part is an IGP with PCIe 3.0 x8. Neither has power connectors, and both have display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent."

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M wins both direct comparisons by comfortable margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 965M scores 14,509 against the Radeon Pro 555X's 12,628, a 14.9% advantage. This is the larger of the two wins and reflects the NVIDIA part's higher shader count and pixel/texture throughput. The Radeon Pro 555X's lower score is consistent with its reduced compute unit count and lower FP32 rate.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 965M again takes the lead with 14,299 versus 12,855, an 11.2% delta. This narrower gap suggests the AMD part performs relatively better in Vulkan than in OpenCL, but it still falls short. The GTX 965M's Vulkan 1.4 support versus the AMD part's Vulkan 1.3 may contribute to this result, though the score difference is more likely tied to raw compute resources.

The Radeon Pro 555X's only standout benchmark is Geekbench Metal, where it scores 14,479. Since there is no comparable Metal score for the GTX 965M in the data, this cannot be directly compared. However, this score is higher than the NVIDIA part's OpenCL score (14,509) and Vulkan score (14,299), suggesting the AMD part is highly optimized for Metal workloads. This is consistent with its "Radeon Pro Mac (500X Series)" generation designation.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the GTX 965M's average score of 14,404 sits just 0.1% above the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385) and 0.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14,373). The Radeon Pro 555X's average of 13,321 is 0.2% below the AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354) and 0.3% below the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356). This places the GTX 965M in a slightly higher performance tier, above the Radeon Pro 555X by roughly 8.1% in average score.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M for users who need maximum cross-platform compute performance. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks with double-digit margins, has a higher average benchmark score (14,404 vs. 13,321), and ranks higher in the overall percentile (56th vs. 54th). If your workload relies on OpenCL or Vulkan — common in Windows and Linux environments — the GTX 965M is the stronger choice, delivering 14.9% better OpenCL performance and 11.2% better Vulkan performance.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555X is the better pick for specific use cases. Its 4 GB of VRAM is double the GTX 965M's 2 GB, which matters for texture-heavy applications or larger datasets. Its higher memory bandwidth (94.08 GB/s vs. 80.19 GB/s) also helps in memory-bound tasks. The 14 nm process node and smaller die (123 mm² vs. 398 mm²) indicate better power efficiency, and the 1:1 FP16 support is a feature the NVIDIA part lacks entirely. Most importantly, the Radeon Pro 555X's strong Metal score (14,479) makes it the logical choice for macOS systems that use Metal as the primary API.

For a Windows-based portable workstation, the GTX 965M's higher raw scores make it the default recommendation. For a Mac environment, the Radeon Pro 555X's Metal performance and larger memory pool are more relevant. The GTX 965M also has superior DirectX 12 feature support (12_1 vs. 12_0) and a newer Vulkan version (1.4 vs. 1.3). The Radeon Pro 555X counters with a newer release date (2018 vs. 2015) and lower TDP (75 W vs. no listed TDP). Choose the GTX 965M for raw compute wins; choose the Radeon Pro 555X for memory capacity, efficiency, and Metal-centric systems.