AMD Radeon R7 M465 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M465 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti are separated by a single benchmark result, but that result tells a clear story of generational efficiency versus raw memory bandwidth. The R7 M465 wins the only head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 5841 against 5731 for the GTX 550 Ti, a 1.9% advantage. However, the data indicates the two GPUs are extremely close overall, with the R7 M465 landing in the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, matching the GTX 550 Ti's identical percentile placement. The real differentiators are architectural: the R7 M465 uses a modern 28 nm GCN 3.0 design with a 64-bit memory bus, while the GTX 550 Ti relies on the older 40 nm Fermi 2.0 architecture with a much wider 192-bit bus.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results show a narrow win for the AMD Radeon R7 M465. The AMD card scores 5841 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti scores 5731 points, giving AMD a 1.9% lead. This is a slim margin, but it is consistent across the nearest rivals list: the R7 M465 also edges out the GTX 550 Ti by the same 1.9% delta when viewed from the GTX 550 Ti's perspective, which lists the R7 M465 as a rival with a -1.9% deltaPct.

The benchmark data also places both cards in a tightly contested mid-range cluster. The R7 M465's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M435 (avg score 5859, -0.3% delta), the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (avg score 5929, -1.5% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M (avg score 5955, -1.9% delta). The GTX 550 Ti's nearest rivals are similarly close: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX (avg score 5721, 0.2% delta), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 (avg score 5712, 0.3% delta), and the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (avg score 5691, 0.7% delta). Neither card is decisively ahead of its peer group in compute workloads.

The single benchmark win does not translate into a dominant performance gap. The R7 M465's advantage is 1.9%, which is within the margin of error for many real-world workloads. The GTX 550 Ti, despite being an older design, posts a score that is only 110 points lower, reflecting its significantly higher memory bandwidth of 98.50 GB/s compared to the R7 M465's 36.00 GB/s. The AMD card compensates with more shading units (384 vs 192) and a higher boost clock of 1024 MHz, but the NVIDIA card's 192-bit bus and 24 ROPs help it stay competitive in the synthetic test.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M465 wins the compute workload measured by Geekbench OpenCL, which is the sole benchmark in the data. This suggests an advantage in general-purpose GPU compute tasks that leverage OpenCL, where the R7 M465's GCN 3.0 architecture and 384 shading units can be fully utilized. The card's FP32 performance of 786.4 GFLOPS is also higher than the GTX 550 Ti's 691.2 GFLOPS, reinforcing its edge in raw mathematical throughput. The R7 M465 also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, a modern API that the GTX 550 Ti lacks entirely, making it more suitable for current software that relies on Vulkan for rendering or compute.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti wins in memory-centric scenarios, based on the specification data. Its memory bandwidth of 98.50 GB/s is nearly three times that of the R7 M465's 36.00 GB/s, which historically benefits texture-heavy workloads and high-resolution rendering where data movement is the bottleneck. The GTX 550 Ti also has a wider 192-bit memory bus and 32 TMUs (vs 24 on the R7 M465), giving it a higher texture rate of 28.80 GTexel/s compared to the R7 M465's 24.58 GTexel/s. Its pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s is lower than the R7 M465's 8.192 GPixel/s, but the memory advantage is substantial enough to favor the NVIDIA card in bandwidth-limited tasks.

Neither card excels at modern gaming features. The GTX 550 Ti supports DirectX 12 (11_0), which is a partial implementation, while the R7 M465 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), the full feature set. The R7 M465 also offers FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (786.4 GFLOPS), which the GTX 550 Ti does not list any FP16 capability for. For users running legacy OpenGL applications, both cards support OpenGL 4.6, so there is parity there.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the AMD Radeon R7 M465 is the better choice for users prioritizing compute performance and modern API support. It wins the only benchmark, has a higher FP32 throughput (786.4 vs 691.2 GFLOPS), and supports both Vulkan and full DirectX 12_0. The 1.9% benchmark lead is small, but the architectural advantages in shading units (384 vs 192) and process node (28 nm vs 40 nm) suggest it is the more forward-looking product, despite being released in 2016 versus 2011 for the GTX 550 Ti.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti remains a viable option for users whose workloads are memory-bound. Its 98.50 GB/s bandwidth and 192-bit bus are unmatched by the R7 M465, and its higher TMU count (32 vs 24) gives it a texture rate advantage. However, the GTX 550 Ti lacks Vulkan support and only offers DirectX 12 (11_0), which limits its compatibility with modern software. The GTX 550 Ti also has a TDP of 116 W and requires a dual-slot cooler with a 6-pin power connector, while the R7 M465 has no listed TDP, power connectors, or slot width, indicating it is likely a lower-power mobile part.

For a desktop user with an existing 300 W power supply, the GTX 550 Ti is a known quantity, but for anyone building a system today, the R7 M465's superior compute scores and newer feature set make it the stronger recommendation. The data does not support a clear victory for the GTX 550 Ti in any measured category, as it loses the sole benchmark and only wins on paper in memory and texture specifications.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5841, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti scores 5731, giving AMD a 1.9% advantage.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti support Vulkan?

A: No, the GTX 550 Ti lists no Vulkan support in its APIs, while the R7 M465 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The GTX 550 Ti has a memory bandwidth of 98.50 GB/s, while the R7 M465 has 36.00 GB/s, a significant difference in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: How many shading units does each card have?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M465 has 384 shading units, whereas the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti has 192 shading units.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M465 has a pixel rate of 8.192 GPixel/s, while the GTX 550 Ti has 7.200 GPixel/s.

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

A: The R7 M465 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), the full feature set, while the GTX 550 Ti supports DirectX 12 (11_0), a partial implementation.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R7 M465 uses the Topaz chip built on the GCN 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,550 million transistors on a die size of 125 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.4 million transistors per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti, in contrast, uses the GF116 chip based on the older Fermi 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a much larger die of 238 mm², yielding a lower transistor density of 4.9 million per mm².

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The R7 M465 has a 64-bit memory bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, running at 1125 MHz with 4.5 Gbps effective speed, producing 36.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 550 Ti has a 192-bit bus with 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory at 1026 MHz and 4.1 Gbps effective speed, delivering 98.50 GB/s. The core configurations also diverge: the R7 M465 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the GTX 550 Ti has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs.

API support is a major differentiator. The R7 M465 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 550 Ti supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan. The R7 M465 also lists FP16 performance at 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32), while the GTX 550 Ti does not list any FP16 capability. The process node difference (28 nm vs 40 nm) explains the R7 M465's higher transistor density and likely contributes to its compute efficiency, but the GTX 550 Ti's wider memory bus remains its key architectural strength.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights the key specification fields where the two GPUs differ, based solely on the provided data:

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M465 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti |

|----------------|---------------------|---------------------------|

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 36.00 GB/s | 98.50 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 192 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.192 GPixel/s | 7.200 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.58 GTexel/s | 28.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 786.4 GFLOPS | 691.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | None listed |

| TDP | Not listed | 116 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Not listed | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | None |

| Release Date | 2016-05-14 | 2011-03-14 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 149 USD |

The R7 M465 is a newer, more compact design with a smaller die and higher transistor density, while the GTX 550 Ti is larger, older, and consumes more power (116 W TDP). The GTX 550 Ti's wider memory bus and higher bandwidth are offset by the R7 M465's greater shading unit count and superior FP32 performance. The R7 M465 also uses PCIe 3.0 x8, whereas the GTX 550 Ti uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The GTX 550 Ti is the only card with a listed launch MSRP of 149 USD, but no pricing comparison is made here.