AMD Radeon Pro 555X vs NVIDIA GeForce MX350 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile graphics parts, with each claiming one victory in the recorded tests. The AMD Radeon Pro 555X takes the OpenCL workload decisively, posting a score of 12,628 against the NVIDIA GeForce MX350's 8,689, a commanding 45.3% advantage. This margin is substantial enough to suggest that compute-oriented tasks, particularly those that leverage OpenCL acceleration, will favor the AMD solution by a wide margin.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 counters in the Vulkan test, though by a much narrower margin. Its score of 13,077 edges out the AMD part's 12,855, a 1.7% difference that falls within the range of run-to-run variance. This tells a different story: for Vulkan-based workloads, the two GPUs are effectively peers, with NVIDIA holding a slight but measurable edge.

Looking at the broader picture, the AMD Radeon Pro 555X sits at the 54th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the MX350 rests at the 49th percentile. The average benchmark scores reinforce this separation: the Radeon Pro 555X averages 13,321 across its three recorded tests, while the MX350 averages 10,883 across its two. That 22% gap in average scores reflects the AMD part's stronger overall showing, driven almost entirely by its OpenCL dominance.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. For applications that rely on OpenCL acceleration, the Radeon Pro 555X is the clear choice, delivering performance that rivals land far closer to its level. For Vulkan-based gaming or compute, the MX350 holds a slight advantage that may matter in specific titles or workloads, though the delta is small. In mixed-use scenarios, the AMD part's higher average score and better compute showing give it the edge for productivity tasks, while the NVIDIA part's Vulkan performance makes it the safer pick for users who prioritize that API.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families and different foundries, which explains much of their behavioral divergence. The AMD Radeon Pro 555X is built on GCN 4.0 architecture, using the Polaris 21 chip, and is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 uses Pascal architecture with the GP107S chip, also on a 14 nm process but fabricated by Samsung. Both parts are end-of-life products, with the AMD releasing in July 2018 and the NVIDIA in February 2020.

Transistor counts and die sizes are broadly similar. The AMD chip packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 24.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip holds 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, for a density of 25.0 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA die is slightly larger and denser, but the differences are modest and do not translate into a clear performance advantage.

The compute architectures diverge significantly. The Radeon Pro 555X fields 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The MX350 counters with 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD part has 20% more shading units and 50% more TMUs, which should theoretically give it an edge in shader-heavy and texture-bound workloads. However, the NVIDIA part compensates with higher clock speeds, which we will examine in the specifications section.

Memory subsystems also differ meaningfully. The Radeon Pro 555X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 94.08 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 56.06 GB/s. The AMD part offers double the memory capacity and nearly 68% more bandwidth, a significant advantage for texture-heavy workloads and larger datasets.

API support shows a split. Both parts support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the Radeon Pro 555X implements DirectX 12 at feature level 12_0, while the MX350 reaches 12_1. Vulkan support also differs: the AMD part lists Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA part lists Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part's higher feature level and newer Vulkan version may matter for specific titles or advanced rendering features.

Power characteristics are starkly different. The Radeon Pro 555X carries a 75 W TDP, while the MX350 sips at 20 W. Neither uses external power connectors, and both are intended for portable devices, but the AMD part clearly draws more power to feed its larger memory bus and more numerous compute units. The MX350's lower power draw makes it suitable for thinner, lighter laptops with less robust cooling.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers two benchmark tests, and the results paint a nuanced picture. In the OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon Pro 555X scores 12,628 against the MX350's 8,689, a 45.3% victory. This is not a marginal win; it is a dominant showing that reflects the AMD part's wider memory bus, double the memory capacity, and greater shading unit count. For OpenCL compute workloads, the data indicates the Radeon Pro 555X operates in a different performance class entirely.

The Vulkan test tells a different story. Here, the MX350 scores 13,077, narrowly edging the Radeon Pro 555X's 12,855, a 1.7% difference. This near-tie suggests that for Vulkan-based rendering, the two GPUs are essentially equivalent in practice. The MX350's higher clock speeds and newer architecture compensate for its smaller memory bus and fewer compute units, at least within this workload.

Contextualizing these results against the nearest rivals in the database adds depth. The Radeon Pro 555X's average score of 13,321 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 (13,300), effectively tied with that older desktop part. It sits 0.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro M6100 (13,354, listed as -0.2% delta) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356, -0.3%). Its closest rival, the AMD Radeon HD 8950M, scores 13,376, putting the Radeon Pro 555X 0.4% behind. These deltas are all within noise, meaning the Radeon Pro 555X performs on par with a cluster of midrange GPUs.

The MX350's nearest rivals tell a similar story of tight grouping. Its average score of 10,883 places it 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro 450 (10,804) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (10,761). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047) by 1.5% and the AMD Radeon RX 550 (11,075) by 1.7%. The MX350 sits in a slightly lower performance band than the Radeon Pro 555X, with its closest rivals all grouping in the 10,700 to 11,100 range.

The takeaway from the head-to-head data is clear: the Radeon Pro 555X wins the compute-heavy OpenCL test by a landslide, while the MX350 takes a narrow Vulkan victory. Users who need OpenCL performance should favor the AMD part without hesitation. Users whose workloads are Vulkan-centric should consider the MX350, but the margin is small enough that other factors like power draw and driver support may weigh more heavily.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several areas where the two GPUs diverge, beyond the architectural differences already covered.

Memory: The Radeon Pro 555X offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 94.08 GB/s bandwidth. The MX350 provides 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 56.06 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part doubles capacity and adds roughly 68% more bandwidth.

Clocks: The MX350 has specified base and boost clocks of 1354 MHz and 1468 MHz, respectively. The Radeon Pro 555X has no base or boost clock listed, only its memory clock of 1470 MHz (5.9 Gbps effective). The MX350's memory clock is 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), which is higher than the AMD part's memory clock.

Compute Units: The Radeon Pro 555X fields 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The MX350 has 640 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD part has more shading units and TMUs, while ROP counts match.

Rates: The MX350 posts a higher pixel rate of 23.49 GPixel/s versus the Radeon Pro 555X's 14.51 GPixel/s. However, the texture rates are close: 46.98 GTexel/s for the MX350 versus 43.54 GTexel/s for the AMD part. FP32 performance favors the MX350 at 1.879 TFLOPS versus 1,393.2 GFLOPS for the Radeon Pro 555X. FP16 performance is dramatically different: the AMD part delivers 1,393.2 GFLOPS at 1:1 ratio, while the MX350 manages only 29.36 GFLOPS at 1:64.

Power: The Radeon Pro 555X carries a 75 W TDP; the MX350 uses 20 W. Neither has external power connectors.

Bus Interface: The AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA part uses PCIe 3.0 x4. The AMD part's wider interface may reduce bandwidth bottlenecks in some scenarios.

API Support: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The MX350 supports DirectX 12 feature level 12_1 versus 12_0 for the Radeon Pro 555X. Vulkan support is 1.3 for AMD and 1.4 for NVIDIA.

Process and Foundry: Both use 14 nm, but AMD uses GlobalFoundries while NVIDIA uses Samsung. The NVIDIA die is slightly larger at 132 mm² versus 123 mm², with a correspondingly higher transistor count of 3,300 million versus 3,000 million.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555X wins decisively, scoring 12,628 versus the MX350's 8,689 in the OpenCL benchmark, a 45.3% advantage.

Q: Which GPU performs better in Vulkan workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 holds a slight edge, scoring 13,077 versus 12,855, a 1.7% lead over the Radeon Pro 555X.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 555X has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Radeon Pro 555X has a TDP of 75 W, while the MX350 uses only 20 W. Neither requires external power connectors.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Radeon Pro 555X averages 13,321 across its tests, placing it at the 54th percentile. The MX350 averages 10,883, landing at the 49th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX350 leads in FP32 with 1.879 TFLOPS, compared to the Radeon Pro 555X's 1,393.2 GFLOPS.