AMD Radeon RX 550 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M and AMD Radeon RX 550 represent two very different eras of mobile and desktop graphics, separated by four years of architectural evolution. The data shows a fascinating split: the older Kepler-based GTX 780M wins two of the three head-to-head compute benchmarks, while the newer Polaris-based RX 550 dominates the Metal API test by a wide margin. Their average benchmark scores land nearly identically—11,261 for the NVIDIA part versus 11,075 for the AMD part—placing both at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, yet the way they achieve those scores could not be more different.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head comparison is the Geekbench Metal test, where the AMD Radeon RX 550 scores 20,838 against the GTX 780M's 8,319. That is a delta of -60.1% for the NVIDIA part, meaning the RX 550 is roughly 2.5 times faster in this specific workload. This is the single largest performance gap between the two cards in any test, and it reflects the RX 550's modern GCN 4.0 architecture having native support for the Metal API, whereas the GTX 780M's Kepler design relies on a translation layer. For any application that stresses Metal compute, the RX 550 is the clear choice, and the margin is so large that it single-handedly pulls the AMD card's average score within striking distance of its rival.

The OpenCL benchmark flips the script decisively. Here, the GTX 780M scores 12,769 versus the RX 550's 11,063, giving NVIDIA a 15.4% advantage. This is a substantial win, not a marginal one. The GTX 780M's 1,536 shading units and 128 texture mapping units provide raw compute throughput that the RX 550's 512 shading units and 32 TMUs cannot match, despite the latter's higher clock speeds. The data suggests that in OpenCL workloads that scale with shader count, the older card's larger execution engine still holds a clear edge.

The Vulkan test is the closest contest of the three. The GTX 780M scores 12,696, edging out the RX 550's 12,270 by a slim 3.5% margin. While this is a win for NVIDIA, the delta is small enough to be considered a statistical tie in practical terms. Both cards are capable of comparable Vulkan performance, which is notable given that the RX 550 has native Vulkan 1.3 support while the GTX 780M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175. The benchmark results indicate that API support alone does not guarantee superior performance; the older architecture compensates with brute-force compute resources.

Looking at the broader picture, the GTX 780M wins two of the three head-to-head tests, but its wins are narrower (15.4% and 3.5%) than the RX 550's single victory (60.1%). The average scores reflect this: 11,261 for NVIDIA versus 11,075 for AMD, a difference of just 1.7%. In the nearest rival lists, the GTX 780M sits 0.3% above the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 and 1.6% above the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q, while the RX 550 sits 0.1% below that same RTX PRO part and 0.3% above the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER. These are all cards clustered within a 2% performance band, emphasizing that neither of these two GPUs has a meaningful aggregate advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 550 wins exclusively in the Metal benchmark, and it wins there by an overwhelming margin. This makes it the preferred choice for macOS-centric workflows or any application that heavily leverages Apple's Metal API. The 60.1% delta is not a nuance; it is a categorical difference in capability. If the workload is Metal compute, the RX 550 is not just better—it is in a different performance class. The RX 550 also benefits from a more modern feature set, including DirectX 12 (12_0) support and Vulkan 1.3, which may matter for compatibility with newer titles even if the benchmark scores do not show a corresponding advantage.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M wins in OpenCL and Vulkan, with the OpenCL victory being particularly pronounced at 15.4%. This makes it the stronger choice for general-purpose GPU compute that uses the OpenCL framework, which is common in professional applications, video encoding, and scientific workloads. The Vulkan win, while smaller at 3.5%, still indicates that the GTX 780M holds its own in modern graphics APIs despite its 2013 vintage. The card's 4 GB of VRAM and 256-bit memory bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth, also give it a capacity advantage over the RX 550's 2 GB and 112.0 GB/s. In texture-bound or memory-heavy scenarios, the GTX 780M's 102.0 GTexel/s texture rate versus the RX 550's 37.86 GTexel/s suggests it can feed its shading units more effectively.

The pixel rate tells a similar story: the GTX 780M reaches 25.50 GPixel/s against the RX 550's 18.93 GPixel/s, a 34.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part. This matters for fill-rate-limited scenes, such as high-resolution rendering with heavy post-processing effects. However, the RX 550 counters with a dramatically better transistor density—21.4M per mm² on a 14 nm process versus 12.0M per mm² on 28 nm—and a much lower power draw of 50 W versus 122 W. For situations where power efficiency is the primary concern, the RX 550 is the obvious winner, as it delivers comparable average performance at less than half the power consumption.

The Verdict

The data supports a nuanced verdict. For users prioritizing Metal performance, the AMD Radeon RX 550 is the only rational choice; its 20,838 Geekbench Metal score is more than double the GTX 780M's, and no amount of OpenCL or Vulkan advantage can overcome that gap for Metal-centric workflows. The RX 550 also offers modern API support (DirectX 12_0, Vulkan 1.3) and a much lower power envelope, making it suitable for compact systems with modest power supplies—its suggested PSU is 250 W, while the GTX 780M has no suggested PSU listed but draws 122 W on its own.

For users who live in OpenCL or Vulkan environments, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M is the stronger performer. Its 15.4% OpenCL lead and 3.5% Vulkan lead are consistent, and its 4 GB of VRAM provides double the capacity of the RX 550, which is critical for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The GTX 780M's higher pixel and texture rates also make it more capable in rasterization-heavy tasks. The trade-off is power and efficiency: the RX 550 does more with less, but the GTX 780M simply has more hardware to throw at a problem.

The aggregate scores are too close to call a winner on average performance alone—11,261 versus 11,075 is a 1.7% difference. The decision must come down to the specific benchmark priorities of the user. If the workload is Metal-heavy, choose AMD. If it is OpenCL- or Vulkan-heavy, choose NVIDIA. There is no universal winner in this comparison; there is only the right tool for the right job, and the data makes that split clear.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M has an average benchmark score of 11,261, which is 1.7% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 550's average of 11,075.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the Geekbench Metal test?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 scores 20,838 in Geekbench Metal, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M scores 8,319. This gives the RX 550 a 60.1% advantage over the GTX 780M.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, the GTX 780M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 12,769 versus 11,063 for the RX 550 (a 15.4% lead), and the Geekbench Vulkan test with 12,696 versus 12,270 (a 3.5% lead).

Q: What are the memory capacities of these two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the AMD Radeon RX 550 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The GTX 780M has a TDP of 122 W, whereas the RX 550 has a TDP of 50 W. The RX 550's suggested PSU is 250 W, while the GTX 780M lists no suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M achieves a pixel rate of 25.50 GPixel/s, compared to the AMD Radeon RX 550's 18.93 GPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures from different foundries. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M uses the GK104 chip based on the Kepler architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The AMD Radeon RX 550 uses the Lexa chip based on GCN 4.0, manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It contains 2,200 million transistors on a much smaller 103 mm² die, achieving a higher transistor density of 21.4M per mm².

Memory subsystems also differ significantly. The GTX 780M features 4 GB of GDDR5 across a 256-bit bus, providing 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 550 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s. NVIDIA's card operates at a base clock of 771 MHz with a boost of 797 MHz, while AMD's card runs at 1100 MHz base and 1183 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the GTX 780M's memory runs at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the RX 550's memory runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward NVIDIA. The GTX 780M has 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, producing 2.448 TFLOPS of FP32 performance. The RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, delivering 1,211.4 GFLOPS of FP32—roughly half the raw compute. The RX 550 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1,211.4 GFLOPS), while the GTX 780M has no FP16 capability listed. API support favors AMD: the RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, whereas the GTX 780M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6, and neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every physical and performance specification. The process node is 28 nm for the GTX 780M versus 14 nm for the RX 550. Transistor count is 3,540 million versus 2,200 million. Die size is 294 mm² versus 103 mm². Transistor density is 12.0M per mm² versus 21.4M per mm². Base clocks are 771 MHz versus 1100 MHz, and boost clocks are 797 MHz versus 1183 MHz. Memory clock is 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration differs: the GTX 780M has 4 GB versus 2 GB, a 256-bit bus versus 128-bit, and 160.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 112.0 GB/s. Shading units are 1536 versus 512, TMUs are 128 versus 32, and ROPs are 32 versus 16. Pixel rate is 25.50 GPixel/s versus 18.93 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 102.0 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.448 TFLOPS versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS. The FP16 figure is null for the GTX 780M and 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) for the RX 550.

Power and physical specs diverge as well. TDP is 122 W versus 50 W. The GTX 780M is an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the RX 550 is a Dual-slot card with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" for the GTX 780M versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RX 550. The RX 550 has a listed length of 145 mm (5.7 inches), while the GTX 780M has no dimensions listed. Release dates are 2013-05-10 for the GTX 780M and 2017-04-19 for the RX 550. The GTX 780M has a launch MSRP of null, while the RX 550 has a launch MSRP of 79 USD.