AMD Radeon RX 550 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 has a higher average benchmark score of 13,189, placing it in the 53rd percentile of all GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 550 scores 11,075 on average, which puts it in the 50th percentile.

Q: How does the GTX 950 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 950 sits within a tight cluster of rivals. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 480 by 0.8%, the AMD Radeon Pro 555X by 1%, and the AMD FirePro M6100 by 1.2%, while leading the NVIDIA Tesla M2090 by 0.9%.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark win for the RX 550?

A: The RX 550 wins decisively in the Geekbench Metal test, scoring 20,838 versus the GTX 950's 7,172. That represents a 65.6% advantage for the AMD card in this specific workload.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark win for the GTX 950?

A: The GTX 950's largest victory comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where it scores 15,662 against the RX 550's 11,063, a 41.6% lead. It also wins Geekbench Vulkan by 36.4%, scoring 16,734 versus 12,270.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 has 768 shading units, while the AMD Radeon RX 550 has 512. The GTX 950 also has more texture mapping units (48 versus 32) and more render output units (32 versus 16).

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The GTX 950 has a 90 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector. The RX 550 has a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors. Both cards list a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 uses the GM206 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The AMD Radeon RX 550 uses the Lexa chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, produced by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. This process advantage gives AMD a significantly smaller die: 103 mm² versus 228 mm² for NVIDIA.

Transistor counts tell an interesting story. The GTX 950 packs 2,940 million transistors into its larger die, while the RX 550 contains 2,200 million. However, the density figures reveal the process node difference clearly: the GTX 950 achieves 12.9 million transistors per mm², while the RX 550 reaches 21.4 million per mm². The newer 14 nm process allows AMD to fit more logic into less space.

The compute pipelines differ substantially. NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 design allocates 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. AMD's GCN 4.0 layout provides 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. These resource allocations directly influence where each card excels. The GTX 950's higher ROP count supports its pixel rate of 38.02 GPixel/s, nearly double the RX 550's 18.93 GPixel/s. Similarly, texture rate favors NVIDIA at 57.02 GTexel/s versus AMD's 37.86 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute performance follows the same pattern. The GTX 950 delivers 1.825 TFLOPS, while the RX 550 provides 1,211.4 GFLOPS. Interestingly, the RX 550 supports FP16 at the same 1,211.4 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, a feature the GTX 950 does not list. API support shows minor differences: the GTX 950 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both offer OpenGL 4.6.

The memory subsystems are similar in capacity and type. Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The RX 550 has a slight bandwidth edge at 112.0 GB/s versus 105.8 GB/s for the GTX 950, thanks to its 1750 MHz memory clock (7 Gbps effective) versus 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective).

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data reveals a clear workload-based split between these two cards. The AMD Radeon RX 550 dominates in Metal API performance, a workload primarily associated with Apple's ecosystem. Its Geekbench Metal score of 20,838 towers over the GTX 950's 7,172, making it the clear choice for Metal-centric applications. This is a massive 65.6% advantage that cannot be ignored.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950, however, wins in the other two recorded benchmark categories. In OpenCL, a broadly used compute framework, the GTX 950 scores 15,662 versus 11,063 for the RX 550, a 41.6% lead. Vulkan performance also favors NVIDIA: 16,734 versus 12,270, a 36.4% advantage. These results suggest the GTX 950 is the stronger card for general-purpose compute and modern cross-platform graphics APIs.

The wins distribution reflects this split: the GTX 950 takes 2 out of 3 head-to-head benchmark victories, while the RX 550 claims 1. For users prioritizing Metal performance, the RX 550 is the obvious pick. For OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, the GTX 950 holds a substantial edge. The data implies that the choice between these cards depends heavily on the software environment and API in use.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node favors AMD: 14 nm from GlobalFoundries versus 28 nm from TSMC. This leads to a die size difference of 103 mm² for the RX 550 versus 228 mm² for the GTX 950. Transistor density also favors AMD at 21.4M per mm² versus 12.9M per mm², though total transistor count favors NVIDIA at 2,940 million versus 2,200 million.

Clock speeds are relatively close. The RX 550 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1183 MHz. The GTX 950 starts at 1024 MHz base and boosts to 1188 MHz. Memory clocks differ more noticeably: the RX 550 runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) while the GTX 950 runs at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). This gives the RX 550 a bandwidth advantage of 112.0 GB/s versus 105.8 GB/s.

Compute resources strongly favor NVIDIA. The GTX 950 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate and texture rate also favor NVIDIA: 38.02 GPixel/s and 57.02 GTexel/s versus 18.93 GPixel/s and 37.86 GTexel/s. FP32 performance follows the same trend at 1.825 TFLOPS versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS.

Power and physical characteristics differ significantly. The GTX 950 has a 90 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector. The RX 550 has a 50 W TDP and needs no power connector. Both suggest a 250 W PSU. The GTX 950 is longer at 202 mm (8 inches) versus 145 mm (5.7 inches) for the RX 550. Both are dual-slot cards.

Bus interface and display outputs also differ. The GTX 950 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the RX 550 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs: the GTX 950 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2. The RX 550 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 550 supports newer display standards despite having fewer outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Metal test produces the most dramatic divergence between these two cards. The AMD Radeon RX 550 scores 20,838, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 manages only 7,172. This 65.6% delta is the largest margin in any benchmark between these GPUs. The RX 550's Metal performance suggests either architectural advantages in this API or better driver optimization for Metal workloads. This result alone explains why the RX 550 wins one of the three head-to-head matchups.

Geekbench OpenCL tells a completely different story. Here, the GTX 950 takes command with a score of 15,662, leaving the RX 550 at 11,063. The 41.6% delta in NVIDIA's favor is substantial and indicates that Maxwell 2.0's compute capabilities outmatch GCN 4.0 in OpenCL environments. This is the GTX 950's largest win and demonstrates its strength in general compute workloads.

Geekbench Vulkan shows a similar pattern, though with a slightly smaller margin. The GTX 950 scores 16,734 against the RX 550's 12,270, a 36.4% advantage. Vulkan is a modern graphics and compute API, and NVIDIA's lead here reinforces the impression that the GTX 950 is the more capable card for contemporary cross-platform workloads. The consistency between OpenCL and Vulkan results suggests a general compute advantage for NVIDIA, while AMD's Metal dominance appears isolated to that specific API.

Looking at the broader context, the GTX 950's average benchmark score of 13,189 places it 19.1% above the RX 550's 11,075. In the percentile rankings, the GTX 950 sits at 53 versus 50 for the RX 550. The nearest rivals for each card further contextualize their positions. The GTX 950 trades blows with the GTX 480, Tesla M2090, Radeon Pro 555X, and FirePro M6100, all within a 1.2% range. The RX 550's rivals include the RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (both at 0.1% delta), the GTX 1650 SUPER (0.3% ahead), and the FirePro W4300 (1.3% ahead).

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 wins the overall performance battle with a higher average score, a better percentile ranking, and victories in 2 of 3 head-to-head benchmarks. Its OpenCL advantage of 41.6% and Vulkan advantage of 36.4% over the RX 550 are decisive. Users working in OpenCL or Vulkan environments should choose the GTX 950 without hesitation.

The AMD Radeon RX 550, however, is not without merit. Its Geekbench Metal score of 20,838 is more than 2.9 times higher than the GTX 950's 7,172. For any workload that leverages Metal, the RX 550 is the clear winner. This suggests the RX 550 may be better suited for Apple-centric workflows or applications that heavily utilize Metal.

Power efficiency also favors the RX 550. Its 50 W TDP is nearly half the GTX 950's 90 W, and it requires no power connector. This makes the RX 550 easier to integrate into systems with limited power delivery. The RX 550 is also shorter at 145 mm versus 202 mm, which helps in compact cases.

The specification sheet reinforces the GTX 950's compute superiority. More shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, and higher FP32 throughput all point to the GTX 950 as the more powerful processor. The RX 550 counters with a newer process node, higher transistor density, faster memory, and a smaller footprint.

For users who need maximum compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan, the GTX 950 is the answer. For users who prioritize Metal performance, power efficiency, or compact size, the RX 550 fits the bill. The recorded data shows a clear trade-off between raw compute power and modern efficiency. There is no single winner across all metrics; the choice depends entirely on the target workload and system constraints.