AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Comparison

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X and NVIDIA GeForce MX550 represent two very different eras of mobile graphics, separated by seven years of architectural evolution. The R9 M295X is a high-power, large-die part from AMD’s GCN 3.0 generation, while the MX550 is a low-power Turing-based chip from NVIDIA. Their benchmark scores show a near-total split: each wins one of the two shared tests, making this comparison a study in raw compute versus modern API efficiency. The data indicates that the older AMD part holds a 12.2% lead in OpenCL, while the newer NVIDIA chip counters with a 10.4% advantage in Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X is the clear winner in compute-heavy, legacy-oriented workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 22858 against the MX550’s 20372, a 12.2% margin. This advantage stems from its massive 2048 shading units and 128 texture mapping units, which dwarf the MX550’s 1024 shaders and 32 TMUs. For applications that rely on raw parallel throughput—such as rendering, physics simulation, or data processing—the R9 M295X’s older but wider architecture provides a decisive edge. Its 256-bit memory bus and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth also give it twice the memory throughput of the MX550, which matters in bandwidth-sensitive compute tasks.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 wins decisively in modern graphics APIs, specifically Vulkan. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 32469 outperforms the R9 M295X’s 29091 by 10.4%. This is a significant reversal given the MX550’s much smaller hardware footprint. The Turing architecture’s superior driver optimization and modern scheduling likely explain this result. The MX550 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) compared to the R9 M295X’s DirectX 12 (12_0), giving it access to more advanced feature levels. For gaming or applications that leverage Vulkan or newer DirectX 12 features, the MX550 is the more capable part despite having half the shaders and a quarter of the TMUs.

The average benchmark scores reflect this split. The R9 M295X posts an average of 28580 across its three tests, placing it in the 74th percentile of all GPUs. The MX550 averages 26421 across two tests, sitting in the 72nd percentile. While the AMD part has a higher average, the MX550’s Vulkan performance shows that API-specific optimization can overcome raw specifications. The R9 M295X’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 570 (0.6% slower) and the Radeon RX 6800M (1.0% slower), while the MX550 sits close to the AMD Radeon 860M (0.1% faster) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (0.3% slower). This indicates both GPUs are competitive within their respective performance tiers, but they achieve their scores through vastly different means.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The R9 M295X uses AMD’s GCN 3.0 architecture on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with a die size of 366 mm². This is a large, power-hungry design built for maximum throughput. It packs 5,000 million transistors, yielding a density of 13.7 million per square millimeter. The chip, codenamed Amethyst, is part of the Gem System (R9 M200) generation. It features 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, configured for massive parallel work. Its memory subsystem uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Notably, the R9 M295X has no base or boost clock listed, but its memory runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The MX550 is a stark contrast. Built on NVIDIA’s Turing architecture using a 12 nm process at TSMC, it has a much smaller die of 200 mm². It contains 4,700 million transistors, resulting in a higher density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. The chip, TU117SB, is part of the GeForce MX (5xx) generation. It has 1024 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs—exactly half the shaders, a quarter of the TMUs, and half the ROPs of the R9 M295X. Its memory is 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s. The MX550 has explicit base and boost clocks of 1065 MHz and 1320 MHz, respectively, and its memory runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and a newer Vulkan 1.4.

The power envelope is where the architectures truly diverge. The R9 M295X has a TDP of 250 W, making it a high-performance part meant for large laptops or mobile workstations. The MX550 sips power at 25 W, a tenfold reduction. This affects their physical formats: the R9 M295X uses an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the MX550 is an IGP with a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface. Both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The R9 M295X’s pixel rate is 23.14 GPixel/s and texture rate is 92.54 GTexel/s, while the MX550 achieves 21.12 GPixel/s and 42.24 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, the R9 M295X leads with 2.961 TFLOPS versus the MX550’s 2.703 TFLOPS, a 9.5% advantage. Both have identical FP16 performance (1:1 ratio).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs share exactly two benchmark tests, and the results are a perfect split. The first test, Geekbench OpenCL, favors the AMD Radeon R9 M295X. It scores 22858 against the MX550’s 20372, a delta of 12.2%. This is the larger victory margin of the two, reflecting the R9 M295X’s superior raw compute resources. The 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs provide a substantial throughput advantage that OpenCL workloads can exploit. The R9 M295X’s 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth also helps, as OpenCL kernels often require frequent data movement. In this test, the AMD part’s older architecture proves that raw width still matters when the API can utilize it.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, flips the result decisively. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 scores 32469, while the R9 M295X manages only 29091. This gives the MX550 a 10.4% lead. The margin is slightly smaller than the R9 M295X’s OpenCL win, but the context is important. The MX550 achieves this with half the shaders, a quarter of the TMUs, and a 64-bit memory bus. Its Vulkan 1.4 support compared to the R9 M295X’s Vulkan 1.2.170 likely contributes to this efficiency. Turing’s architecture was designed with modern APIs in mind, and the benchmark data confirms that the MX550 extracts far more performance per shader in Vulkan. This suggests that for contemporary games or Vulkan-based applications, the MX550 is the better choice despite its smaller hardware.

The average scores place these wins in perspective. The R9 M295X’s three benchmarks give an average of 28580, while the MX550’s two tests yield 26421. The R9 M295X’s third test, Geekbench Metal with a score of 33790, is not shared with the MX550, which lacks a Metal result. This Metal score is the R9 M295X’s best, and it boosts its average. Without that test, the comparison would be closer. The delta between the shared tests is 12.2% for AMD and 10.4% for NVIDIA, meaning the R9 M295X wins the larger margin, but the MX550 wins the more modern API. The percentile rankings reflect this balance: the R9 M295X sits at the 74th percentile, the MX550 at the 72nd, a narrow gap that belies their architectural differences.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M295X is 12.2% faster in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 22858 versus the MX550’s 20372.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 wins Geekbench Vulkan with a score of 32469, beating the R9 M295X’s 29091 by 10.4%.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The R9 M295X averages 28580 across three tests, placing it in the 74th percentile. The MX550 averages 26421 across two tests, in the 72nd percentile.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The R9 M295X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MX550 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The R9 M295X has a TDP of 250 W, while the MX550 has a TDP of 25 W, a tenfold difference.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: The MX550 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M295X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The most striking difference is power: the R9 M295X draws 250 W, while the MX550 consumes only 25 W. This is reflected in their process nodes—28 nm for AMD versus 12 nm for NVIDIA—and die sizes of 366 mm² versus 200 mm². The R9 M295X has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the MX550 has 1024 shaders, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD part’s memory is 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit interface, achieving 160.0 GB/s; the NVIDIA part has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit interface, achieving 96.00 GB/s.

Clock behavior also differs. The R9 M295X has no listed base or boost clocks, with memory at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The MX550 has a base clock of 1065 MHz, a boost of 1320 MHz, and memory at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective). Pixel and texture rates favor the R9 M295X: 23.14 GPixel/s versus 21.12 GPixel/s, and 92.54 GTexel/s versus 42.24 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.961 TFLOPS for AMD versus 2.703 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. Transistor counts are similar at 5,000 million and 4,700 million, but density differs due to die size: 13.7M per mm² for AMD versus 23.5M per mm² for NVIDIA.

The physical and interface specifications are entirely different. The R9 M295X uses an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus, while the MX550 is an IGP with PCIe 4.0 x8. Both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Release dates are separated by over seven years: November 22, 2014 for the R9 M295X and December 16, 2021 for the MX550. The R9 M295X’s predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile, while the MX550 has no listed predecessor or successor. Both are end-of-life products. The R9 M295X’s chip is Amethyst with GCN 3.0 architecture, while the MX550’s chip is TU117SB with Turing architecture. Neither has a launch MSRP listed.