AMD Radeon R9 M295X vs NVIDIA T550 Mobile Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA T550 Mobile records an average benchmark score of 33161, while the AMD Radeon R9 M295X records 28580. The T550 Mobile sits at the 77th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the 74th percentile for the R9 M295X.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA T550 Mobile scores 35521 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R9 M295X scores 22858. This gives the T550 Mobile a 55.4% advantage in that workload.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA T550 Mobile wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 30801 versus 29091 for the AMD Radeon R9 M295X. The margin is 5.9%.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: Both cards have 4 GB of memory, but the NVIDIA T550 Mobile uses GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 throughput?

A: The NVIDIA T550 Mobile delivers 3.410 TFLOPS FP32, while the AMD Radeon R9 M295X delivers 2.961 TFLOPS FP32. The T550 Mobile leads in this compute metric.

Q: What are the power requirements of each card?

A: The NVIDIA T550 Mobile has a TDP of 23 W and an IGP slot width. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X has a TDP of 250 W and uses an MXM Module form factor.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear winner in the NVIDIA T550 Mobile. It wins both head-to-head tests and holds a substantial lead in average score. The T550 Mobile records an average benchmark score of 33161, which is 16.0% higher than the R9 M295X's 28580. Its percentile ranking of 77 versus 74 reinforces this advantage.

The T550 Mobile is the pick for users prioritizing compute performance per watt. Its 23 W TDP stands in sharp contrast to the 250 W TDP of the R9 M295X. The AMD card draws more than ten times the power yet still trails in every recorded benchmark. For mobile workstations where thermals and battery life matter, the data strongly favors the NVIDIA part.

The AMD Radeon R9 M295X does retain advantages in memory bandwidth. Its 160.0 GB/s bandwidth is 66.7% higher than the T550 Mobile's 96.00 GB/s. It also has double the shading units (2048 versus 1024) and double the texture mapping units (128 versus 64). However, these hardware advantages do not translate into benchmark wins. The R9 M295X's 23.14 GPixel/s pixel rate is less than half of the T550 Mobile's 53.28 GPixel/s.

Users who need Vulkan performance will still find the T550 Mobile ahead, though the margin is narrower. The 5.9% lead in Geekbench Vulkan suggests the gap narrows in graphics-heavy workloads. But for OpenCL compute tasks, the T550 Mobile is decisively faster. The 55.4% delta in that test makes the choice straightforward for compute-oriented applications.

The AMD card may appeal to those who prioritize memory throughput or who work in ecosystems where Metal API support matters. It scores 33790 in Geekbench Metal, a test not recorded for the NVIDIA part. However, the T550 Mobile's superior efficiency, higher FP32 throughput, and better benchmark results make it the stronger overall recommendation from the recorded data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison covers two benchmark tests, and the NVIDIA T550 Mobile wins both. The first test, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the largest gap. The T550 Mobile scores 35521 against the R9 M295X's 22858. That is a 55.4% difference. This is a substantial margin that reflects the T550 Mobile's higher FP32 throughput of 3.410 TFLOPS versus 2.961 TFLOPS.

The second test, Geekbench Vulkan, shows a closer contest. The T550 Mobile scores 30801, while the R9 M295X scores 29091. The delta is 5.9%. This narrower margin suggests that Vulkan workloads may be less sensitive to the architectural differences between the two GPUs. Still, the NVIDIA part maintains its winning streak.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the T550 Mobile's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile with an average score of 33170 and a delta of 0%, the AMD Radeon Pro 570 at 33207 with a delta of -0.1%, and the NVIDIA P104-100 at 32982 with a delta of 0.5%. The T550 Mobile fits comfortably into this performance tier.

The R9 M295X's nearest rivals paint a different picture. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000 scores 28421 with a delta of 0.6%, the AMD Radeon RX 570 scores 28766 with a delta of -0.6%, and the AMD Radeon RX 6800M scores 28874 with a delta of -1%. The R9 M295X sits slightly below these parts in average score.

The average benchmark scores tell the full story. The T550 Mobile's 33161 average is well above the R9 M295X's 28580. That is a 16.0% gap in aggregate performance. Users running a mix of workloads will see the T550 Mobile pull ahead consistently.

The R9 M295X does have one benchmark result not shared with the T550 Mobile: Geekbench Metal. It scores 33790 in that test. This is a strong result, though no direct comparison exists in the database. The T550 Mobile has no recorded Metal score, so this may be relevant for macOS or Metal-based applications.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The NVIDIA T550 Mobile uses the TU117 chip built on a 12 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon R9 M295X uses the Amethyst chip on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The T550 Mobile packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The R9 M295X has 5,000 million transistors on a 366 mm² die, with a density of 13.7M per mm².

Clock speeds differ significantly. The T550 Mobile has a base clock of 1065 MHz and a boost clock of 1665 MHz. The R9 M295X has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. Its memory clock is 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, while the T550 Mobile runs memory at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed.

Memory bandwidth favors the AMD card. The R9 M295X has a 256-bit bus and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The T550 Mobile has a 64-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD part delivers 66.7% more bandwidth. Memory type also differs: GDDR5 versus GDDR6.

The compute units are split differently. The T550 Mobile has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The R9 M295X has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having half the shading units, the T550 Mobile achieves higher pixel and texture rates. Its pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s versus 23.14 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 106.6 GTexel/s versus 92.54 GTexel/s.

FP32 and FP16 compute also diverge. The T550 Mobile delivers 3.410 TFLOPS FP32 and 6.820 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio. The R9 M295X delivers 2.961 TFLOPS FP32 and 2.961 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio. The T550 Mobile leads in both, with a 15.2% advantage in FP32 and a 130.4% advantage in FP16.

Power consumption is the most dramatic difference. The T550 Mobile has a TDP of 23 W and uses an IGP form factor. The R9 M295X has a TDP of 250 W and uses an MXM Module. The form factor difference reflects their intended deployment: integrated laptop GPUs versus modular mobile systems.

The bus interface also differs. The T550 Mobile uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R9 M295X uses MXM-B (3.0). Both support portable device dependent display outputs. The T550 Mobile has a production status of end-of-life, as does the R9 M295X. The AMD card has a release date of 2014-11-22, while the NVIDIA part has no recorded release date.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA T550 Mobile is built on the Turing architecture, part of the Quadro Turing-M generation (Tx000). The AMD Radeon R9 M295X uses the GCN 3.0 architecture from the Gem System generation (R9 M200). These are fundamentally different GPU designs that explain many of the performance differences.

Turing, as implemented in the TU117 chip, is a modern architecture designed for efficiency and compute versatility. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The GCN 3.0 architecture in the R9 M295X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The API support differs in DirectX feature level and Vulkan version.

The process node difference is stark. The T550 Mobile uses TSMC's 12 nm process, while the R9 M295X uses the older 28 nm process. This explains the transistor density gap: 23.5M per mm² versus 13.7M per mm². The T550 Mobile achieves higher performance with fewer transistors (4,700 million versus 5,000 million) on a smaller die (200 mm² versus 366 mm²).

Both architectures lack dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores. The database lists no RT cores or tensor cores for either GPU. This means neither card offers hardware-accelerated ray tracing or AI acceleration. Their compute capabilities come from traditional shader units.

The FP16 performance highlights an architectural divergence. The T550 Mobile supports FP16 at a 2:1 rate, effectively doubling its FP16 throughput to 6.820 TFLOPS. The R9 M295X runs FP16 at a 1:1 rate, matching its FP32 throughput at 2.961 TFLOPS. This makes the T550 Mobile significantly faster for FP16 workloads, which are common in machine learning inference and certain media processing tasks.

The memory architecture also differs beyond bandwidth. The T550 Mobile uses GDDR6 memory with a 64-bit bus, while the R9 M295X uses GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus. The newer GDDR6 memory runs at higher effective speeds (12 Gbps versus 5 Gbps), partially compensating for the narrower bus. The R9 M295X's wider bus gives it the bandwidth advantage, but the T550 Mobile's higher clock speeds on a smaller bus prove sufficient for its benchmark wins.

The generation gap is visible in the predecessor and successor designations. The T550 Mobile's predecessor is Quadro Pascal-M, and its successor is Ampere-MW. The R9 M295X's predecessor is Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile. These designations show that the T550 Mobile belongs to a later product cycle than the R9 M295X.

Power efficiency is the clearest architectural win for Turing. The T550 Mobile delivers its benchmark scores at 23 W, while the R9 M295X requires 250 W. That is a 10.9x power difference. The T550 Mobile achieves 1443 benchmark points per watt of TDP, while the R9 M295X achieves 114 points per watt. The Turing architecture's efficiency advantage is evident in every recorded metric.