AMD Radeon RX 550 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 records an average benchmark score of 11075, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 scores 9294. The RX 550 sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 465 sits at the 46th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The RX 550 scores 11063 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 19% higher than the GTX 465's 9294. This is the only head-to-head benchmark recorded for both cards.

Q: What are the nearest rivals to each card according to average score?

A: The RX 550's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER, which scores 11047, a 0.3% difference. The GTX 465's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M at 9302, a 0.1% difference.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 has 512 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 has 352 shading units. Despite this, the GTX 465 has more texture mapping units (44 vs 32) and more ROPs (32 vs 16).

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity and bus width?

A: The RX 550 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 465 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.7 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 550 has more capacity, but the GTX 465 has the wider bus.

Q: What are the TDP and power connector requirements for each card?

A: The RX 550 has a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 465 has a 200 W TDP, requires two 6-pin power connectors, and needs a 550 W suggested PSU.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon RX 550 is built on the Lexa chip using the GCN 4.0 architecture, produced on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It belongs to the Polaris (RX 500) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 uses the GF100 chip with the Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC, and is part of the GeForce 400 generation. The process node difference is substantial: 14 nm versus 40 nm, which explains the dramatic difference in die size and transistor density.

The RX 550 packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The GTX 465 contains 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die, resulting in only 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 465 has more total transistors, but the RX 550's modern process allows for far greater density.

Memory architectures differ significantly. The RX 550 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 465 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 with a 256-bit bus and 102.7 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 465's wider bus nearly compensates for its lower effective memory clock (3.2 Gbps vs 7 Gbps effective), but the RX 550 still edges ahead in raw bandwidth by about 9%.

The compute configurations are structured differently. The RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 465 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the GTX 465 has more texture and pixel processing capacity per shading unit, while the RX 550 concentrates more raw shader throughput. The RX 550 achieves 1,211.4 GFLOPS FP32 performance, while the GTX 465 achieves 855.4 GFLOPS.

Feature support diverges as well. The RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 465 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The RX 550 also has a 1:1 FP16 ratio matching its FP32 throughput, while the GTX 465 has no FP16 data recorded. Interface differences include PCIe 3.0 x8 for the RX 550 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for the GTX 465. Display outputs also differ: the RX 550 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the GTX 465 offers 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a.

Power and physical characteristics are starkly different. The RX 550 has a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and measures 145 mm (5.7 inches). The GTX 465 has a 200 W TDP, requires two 6-pin connectors, a suggested PSU of 550 W, and measures 241 mm (9.5 inches). Both are dual-slot cards.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon RX 550 scores 11063, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 scores 9294. This gives the RX 550 a 19% lead, a decisive margin in compute workloads. For context, the RX 550's average benchmark score of 11075 places it just 0.1% below the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (11088) and 0.3% above the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11047). The GTX 465's average of 9294 places it 0.1% below the GeForce GTX 850M (9302) and 0.2% below the AMD Radeon R7 M380 (9313).

The RX 550 also has recorded scores in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (127), Geekbench Metal (20838), and Geekbench Vulkan (12270), showing strength across multiple API workloads. The GTX 465 has no data for those tests, so cross-comparison is limited to OpenCL. The RX 550's Metal score of 20838 is particularly notable, suggesting strong performance in Apple ecosystem compute tasks, though no direct rival data exists for that test.

The delta in average benchmark scores is 1781 points in favor of the RX 550, which is roughly 19% of the GTX 465's total score. This consistency between the head-to-head OpenCL result and the overall average indicates the RX 550 maintains its advantage across the board, not just in one synthetic test.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD Radeon RX 550 for overall compute performance. It wins the only shared benchmark by 19%, has a higher average score (11075 vs 9294), and sits at a higher percentile (50th vs 46th). The RX 550 also offers twice the memory capacity (2 GB vs 1024 MB), higher bandwidth, and a dramatically lower power draw of 50 W versus 200 W, with no external power connectors required.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 is not without merits. It has more TMUs (44 vs 32) and more ROPs (32 vs 16), which historically benefits certain texture-heavy and fill-rate-bound workloads. Its 256-bit memory bus provides a wider pathway for data, though the RX 550's faster effective memory clock (7 Gbps vs 3.2 Gbps) results in higher overall bandwidth.

For a builder choosing between these two today, the RX 550 is the more practical option. It is smaller (145 mm vs 241 mm), requires no power connectors, and fits into far more systems given its 250 W PSU suggestion versus 550 W. Its modern API support, including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0), makes it more compatible with current software. The GTX 465's DirectX 12 (11_0) support and lack of Vulkan limit its usability in modern titles.

The GTX 465 might appeal to someone specifically seeking a Fermi-era card for legacy compatibility or collecting, but as a functional GPU, the RX 550 outperforms it in every recorded benchmark and offers superior efficiency. The launch MSRP difference also reflects their positioning: 79 USD for the RX 550 versus 279 USD for the GTX 465, though both are now end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every hardware category. The RX 550 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the GTX 465 uses a 40 nm process from TSMC. Transistor counts are 2,200 million versus 3,100 million, with die sizes of 103 mm² versus 529 mm². Transistor density is 21.4M per mm² for the RX 550 versus 5.9M per mm² for the GTX 465.

Clock speeds: the RX 550 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and boost clock of 1183 MHz, with memory at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The GTX 465 has no base or boost clock recorded, but its memory runs at 802 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration: 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth for the RX 550; 1024 MB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.7 GB/s bandwidth for the GTX 465.

Compute units: the RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 465 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rates are 18.93 GPixel/s for the RX 550 versus 13.38 GPixel/s for the GTX 465. Texture rates are 37.86 GTexel/s versus 26.75 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,211.4 GFLOPS versus 855.4 GFLOPS. The RX 550 has FP16 at 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1), while the GTX 465 has no FP16 data.

Power: 50 W TDP with no connectors and 250 W suggested PSU for the RX 550; 200 W TDP with two 6-pin connectors and 550 W suggested PSU for the GTX 465.

Interface and outputs: PCIe 3.0 x8 and 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RX 550; PCIe 2.0 x16 and 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a for the GTX 465.

API support: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.3 for the RX 550; DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, no Vulkan for the GTX 465.

Physical dimensions: 145 mm (5.7 inches) for the RX 550 versus 241 mm (9.5 inches) for the GTX 465. Both are dual-slot.

Release dates: April 2017 for the RX 550 versus May 2010 for the GTX 465. The RX 550's predecessor is Arctic Islands and successor is Vega; the GTX 465's predecessor is GeForce 200 and successor is GeForce 500.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 550 wins in raw compute throughput, as shown by its 19% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and higher average score overall. It also wins in memory capacity and bandwidth, offering 2 GB versus 1024 MB and 112.0 GB/s versus 102.7 GB/s. Its FP32 performance of 1,211.4 GFLOPS is roughly 42% higher than the GTX 465's 855.4 GFLOPS. The RX 550 also wins decisively on efficiency: 50 W versus 200 W TDP means it can run in systems with a 250 W PSU, whereas the GTX 465 demands 550 W. Its smaller 145 mm length fits in compact cases, and it requires no power connectors, simplifying installation. For modern software support, the RX 550's Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0) are clear advantages over the GTX 465's DirectX 12 (11_0) and missing Vulkan. The RX 550 also has higher pixel and texture rates: 18.93 GPixel/s versus 13.38 GPixel/s, and 37.86 GTexel/s versus 26.75 GTexel/s.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 wins in a few specific hardware aspects. It has more TMUs (44 vs 32) and more ROPs (32 vs 16), which could benefit fill-rate-limited workloads that rely on texture filtering and pixel output rather than raw shader compute. Its 256-bit memory bus is twice as wide as the RX 550's 128-bit bus, which can be advantageous for certain memory access patterns despite the lower effective clock. The GTX 465 also has a higher transistor count (3,100 million vs 2,200 million), though on an older process. Its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface provides full x16 bandwidth, while the RX 550 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, which offers similar total bandwidth but through fewer lanes. In terms of display outputs, the GTX 465 offers dual DVI ports, which may suit users with older monitors that lack HDMI or DisplayPort compatibility. The GTX 465's higher TDP and larger physical size are drawbacks, but they reflect a card designed for a different era with different priorities.

For practical use, the RX 550 is the better choice for anyone building a low-power, compact system that still needs modern API support and competitive compute performance. The GTX 465 is only preferable for those specifically needing its higher TMU and ROP counts or its dual DVI output configuration, and who can accommodate its 200 W power draw and 241 mm length. The benchmark data does not show any test where the GTX 465 outperforms the RX 550, so any advantage would be theoretical based on hardware specifications rather than demonstrated performance.