AMD Radeon R9 M395X vs NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce MX550 vs AMD Radeon R9 M395X

The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 and AMD Radeon R9 M395X represent two very different generations of mobile graphics, separated by over six years of architectural evolution. The MX550, built on a 12 nm Turing process, edges out the older 28 nm GCN 3.0-based R9 M395X in the only directly comparable benchmark, yet the R9 M395X counters with far superior memory resources and raw throughput specifications. The average benchmark scores tell a close story — the MX550 posts 26,421 versus 25,891 for the R9 M395X — placing both GPUs within 0.1% to 0.6% of a cluster of rivals that includes the AMD Radeon 860M, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060, and AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT. The MX550 holds a 72nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the R9 M395X sits just one point lower at the 71st percentile. These are not dramatically different performance classes, but the underlying designs could hardly be more dissimilar.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture where the "better" GPU depends entirely on the workload and platform constraints. In the single head-to-head benchmark available — Geekbench OpenCL — the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 wins decisively with a score of 20,372 against 17,829 for the AMD Radeon R9 M395X, a 14.3% advantage. This is a meaningful gap in raw compute performance, suggesting that the newer Turing architecture's efficiency and instruction handling deliver more usable performance per unit of hardware. The MX550 also achieves this with a 25 W TDP compared to the R9 M395X's 75 W TDP, making it three times more power-efficient on paper. However, the R9 M395X is not without its own arguments. It offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory versus 2 GB of GDDR6, and a 256-bit memory bus versus 64-bit, yielding 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth compared to 96.00 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-capacity-bound or bandwidth-sensitive, the R9 M395X's specifications suggest it would pull ahead despite losing the compute benchmark. The MX550's higher average benchmark score (26,421 vs 25,891) and superior percentile ranking (72 vs 71) indicate it is the better all-around performer in synthetic tests, but the R9 M395X's memory advantage could prove decisive in specific real-world scenarios. Buyers needing maximum compute performance in a low-power envelope should choose the MX550; those requiring large frame buffers for high-resolution textures or multi-monitor setups should consider the R9 M395X despite its age.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 scores 26,421 on average, which is 530 points higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M395X's 25,891 average. This places the MX550 at the 72nd percentile versus the 71st percentile for the R9 M395X.

Q: How much faster is the MX550 in the direct comparison?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the MX550 scores 20,372 versus 17,829 for the R9 M395X, resulting in a 14.3% performance advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The R9 M395X offers 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 160.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX550 provides 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R9 M395X has four times the memory capacity and roughly 67% more bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The MX550 has a 25 W TDP and uses an IGP slot width with no power connectors, while the R9 M395X has a 75 W TDP and uses an MXM Module form factor, also with no external power connectors. The MX550 consumes one-third the power of the R9 M395X.

Q: Which GPU is more recent?

A: The MX550 was released on 2021-12-16, while the R9 M395X came out on 2015-05-04, making the MX550 over six years newer. The R9 M395X lists its predecessor as "Solar System" and successor as "Polaris Mobile."

Q: Do both GPUs support modern APIs equally?

A: No. The MX550 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M395X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX550 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs spans multiple generations of design philosophy. The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 uses the TU117SB chip built on Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. It packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². The AMD Radeon R9 M395X, by contrast, uses the Amethyst chip based on GCN 3.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 5,000 million transistors spread across a much larger 366 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 13.7M per mm². The R9 M395X has more raw hardware — 2,048 shading units versus 1,024, 128 texture mapping units versus 32, and 32 ROPs versus 16 — but the MX550's newer architecture extracts more performance per unit. Both GPUs lack dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores, and both offer FP32 and FP16 performance at a 1:1 ratio, with the MX550 delivering 2.703 TFLOPS FP32 and the R9 M395X slightly higher at 2.961 TFLOPS FP32. The MX550 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R9 M395X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, reflecting the older architecture's reduced feature set. The MX550's memory clock runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective speed, whereas the R9 M395X runs at 1250 MHz with 5 Gbps effective, but the R9 M395X compensates with a wider bus and more memory.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply on nearly every specification that matters. The MX550's base clock is 1065 MHz with a boost clock of 1320 MHz, while the R9 M395X has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory configurations are drastically different: the MX550 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 with a 64-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth; the R9 M395X uses 8 GB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The shading unit count favors the R9 M395X at 2,048 versus 1,024, as do TMUs (128 vs 32) and ROPs (32 vs 16). Pixel rate is slightly higher on the R9 M395X at 23.14 GPixel/s versus 21.12 GPixel/s, and texture rate is more than double at 92.54 GTexel/s versus 42.24 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.961 TFLOPS for the R9 M395X versus 2.703 TFLOPS for the MX550. The MX550 integrates as IGP with a 25 W TDP and uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the R9 M395X is an MXM Module with a 75 W TDP and uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Both are end-of-life products with no launch MSRP listed and portable-device-dependent display outputs. The MX550's generation is listed as "GeForce MX (5xx)" and the R9 M395X's as "Gem System (R9 M300)."

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it favors the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 by a substantial margin. The MX550 scores 20,372 against the R9 M395X's 17,829, yielding a 14.3% delta in NVIDIA's favor. This is a significant result because the R9 M395X has twice the shading units, four times the TMUs, double the ROPs, and 67% more memory bandwidth — yet the MX550 still wins. The implication is that Turing's architecture-level improvements, including better instruction scheduling, more efficient memory compression, and superior driver optimization, more than compensate for the hardware deficit. However, the R9 M395X does have its own benchmark data: it scores 33,953 in Geekbench Metal, a test the MX550 does not participate in. This Metal score is notably higher than the MX550's OpenCL score, though cross-API comparisons are not directly meaningful. The MX550 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 32,469, which exceeds the R9 M395X's OpenCL result but again represents a different API path. The average benchmark scores — 26,421 for the MX550 and 25,891 for the R9 M395X — suggest that when all available tests are weighted, the MX550 holds a 2% overall advantage. The MX550's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 860M (0.1% lower), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (0.3% lower), AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (0.5% higher), and NVIDIA RTX A4000 (1% higher). The R9 M395X's rivals include the AMD FirePro W7100 (0.1% lower), AMD FirePro D700 (0.2% lower), AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT (0.5% higher), and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile (0.6% lower).

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 wins in compute performance, power efficiency, and modern API support. Its 14.3% OpenCL advantage over the R9 M395X is the clearest victory, achieved while consuming only one-third the power (25 W vs 75 W). The MX550's higher average benchmark score and percentile ranking confirm its overall performance superiority. It also supports newer DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 standards, making it more future-proof for software that leverages these APIs. The MX550's compact IGP form factor and PCIe 4.0 x8 interface suggest it fits in thinner, lighter laptops where the R9 M395X's MXM Module cannot. For users prioritizing compute workloads, battery life, and modern feature support, the MX550 is the clear choice.

The AMD Radeon R9 M395X wins on memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and raw hardware resources. Its 8 GB frame buffer is four times larger than the MX550's 2 GB, which could be critical for high-resolution textures, large datasets, or multi-monitor configurations. Its 160.0 GB/s bandwidth is 67% higher than the MX550's 96.00 GB/s, benefiting memory-intensive workloads like video editing or large compute buffers. The R9 M395X also has higher theoretical peak performance in pixel rate (23.14 vs 21.12 GPixel/s), texture rate (92.54 vs 42.24 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute (2.961 vs 2.703 TFLOPS), suggesting it could outperform the MX550 in scenarios that fully utilize these resources. The R9 M395X's strong Geekbench Metal score of 33,953 indicates solid performance on Apple platforms. For users with memory-hungry applications or those working within the Metal ecosystem, the R9 M395X's advantages are substantial despite its age and higher power draw.