AMD Radeon RX 550 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A and AMD Radeon RX 550 are both end-of-life graphics cards aimed at the entry-level segment, but the data reveals they are fundamentally different products. The GTX 960A is a mobile-oriented MXM module based on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, while the RX 550 is a desktop dual-slot card built on AMD’s GCN 4.0. The single shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the GTX 960A scoring 11,998 against the RX 550’s 11,063, an 8.5% advantage for the NVIDIA part. However, the RX 550 counters with a much broader feature set, including Vulkan support, a smaller process node, and a lower thermal design power. The question is whether raw compute performance in one test outweighs the architectural and efficiency gains of the newer AMD card.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data provides a narrow but decisive picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A wins the only head-to-head test available. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 960A scores 11,998, which is 8.5% higher than the RX 550’s 11,063. This win aligns with the GTX 960A’s hardware configuration: it has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units, compared to the RX 550’s 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 960A also posts a higher FP32 compute rate of 1.505 TFLOPS versus the RX 550’s 1,211.4 GFLOPS, and a texture rate of 47.04 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s. These figures suggest the GTX 960A is the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads that scale with shader count and texture throughput.

The AMD Radeon RX 550, despite losing the OpenCL comparison, wins on architectural modernity and efficiency. It is built on a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, versus the GTX 960A’s 28 nm node from TSMC. This allows the RX 550 to pack 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4M / mm², while the GTX 960A has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die with a density of 12.6M / mm². The RX 550 also has a higher memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s compared to the GTX 960A’s 80.19 GB/s, despite both using 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The RX 550’s memory clock runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the GTX 960A’s runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). For users prioritizing power efficiency, the RX 550’s 50 W TDP versus the GTX 960A’s 75 W TDP is a clear advantage, as is its suggested PSU of 250 W, which is lower than the GTX 960A’s unspecified requirement.

The RX 550 also wins on connectivity and API support. It offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the GTX 960A’s display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its MXM module form factor. The RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 550 also has a dedicated FP16 performance rating of 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1), whereas the GTX 960A has no listed FP16 capability. In terms of ecosystem, the RX 550 has a proper PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, while the GTX 960A uses MXM-B (3.0), which is typically found in laptops or specialized systems.

The Verdict

The data suggests a clear split: the NVIDIA GTX 960A is the compute performance winner, while the AMD RX 550 is the efficiency and feature-set winner. For users who need raw OpenCL compute performance, the GTX 960A’s 8.5% lead in the sole head-to-head benchmark is the deciding factor. The GTX 960A also places higher in the overall percentile ranking at 51 versus the RX 550’s 50, and its average benchmark score of 11,998 is close to that of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 (11,960, 0.3% delta), suggesting it punches above its class in compute tasks. However, the RX 550’s lower TDP, higher memory bandwidth, and more modern 14 nm node make it the better choice for compact or power-constrained builds where thermal output and energy draw are critical.

The RX 550’s broader API support, including DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, makes it more future-proof for gaming workloads that leverage these modern APIs. The GTX 960A’s DirectX 12 (11_0) support is a limitation for titles that require feature level 12_0. Additionally, the RX 550’s display outputs are practical for desktop use, while the GTX 960A’s outputs are dependent on the host device. For a desktop user, the RX 550 is the more sensible buy based on the data, despite losing the OpenCL test. The GTX 960A, on the other hand, is a specialized MXM module that would only make sense in a portable or proprietary system where its form factor is required. The data does not support the GTX 960A as a general-purpose desktop card, given its lack of standard display outputs and PCIe interface.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA GTX 960A wins decisively. The GTX 960A scores 11,998, while the AMD RX 550 scores 11,063, yielding a delta of 8.5% in favor of NVIDIA. This margin is substantial for a single benchmark and reflects the GTX 960A’s higher shader count (640 vs 512) and higher clock speeds (base 1097 MHz vs 1100 MHz, boost 1176 MHz vs 1183 MHz — the AMD card actually has a slightly higher boost clock, but the NVIDIA card’s extra shaders win out). The GTX 960A’s FP32 throughput of 1.505 TFLOPS is 24.2% higher than the RX 550’s 1,211.4 GFLOPS, which likely drives the OpenCL performance gap.

The RX 550 does have a counterpoint in memory bandwidth: 112.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s, a 39.7% advantage. Yet this did not translate into a win in the OpenCL test, suggesting the test is compute-bound rather than memory-bound. The RX 550’s pixel rate of 18.93 GPixel/s is slightly higher than the GTX 960A’s 18.82 GPixel/s, but the GTX 960A’s texture rate of 47.04 GTexel/s is 24.3% higher than the RX 550’s 37.86 GTexel/s. In the context of the nearest rivals, the GTX 960A’s score of 11,998 is within 0.3% of the GeForce GTX 1080 (11,960) and 1.3% of the Radeon RX 6500 XT (11,842), showing that the GTX 960A is competitive with much newer and higher-tier cards in this specific workload. The RX 550’s score of 11,063 is within 0.3% of the GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047) and within 1.3% of the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225), indicating it sits in the same performance tier as those cards.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11,998 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 8.5% higher than the AMD Radeon RX 550’s score of 11,063.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 has a memory bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s, which is 39.7% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A’s 80.19 GB/s, despite both using 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a lower thermal design power?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 has a TDP of 50 W, which is 25 W lower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A’s 75 W. The RX 550 also has a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The AMD Radeon RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 960A supports Vulkan 1.4 while the RX 550 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A is an MXM Module with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0), while the AMD Radeon RX 550 is a Dual-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The RX 550 has a length of 145 mm (5.7 inches) and standard display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the GTX 960A’s display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent."

Q: How do the two cards compare in process technology?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 is built on a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A uses a 28 nm process from TSMC. This results in the RX 550 having a higher transistor density of 21.4M / mm² versus 12.6M / mm² for the GTX 960A.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent distinct architectural generations. The NVIDIA GTX 960A uses the GM107 chip based on the Maxwell architecture, part of the GeForce 900A generation, released on 2015-03-12. The AMD Radeon RX 550 uses the Lexa chip based on GCN 4.0, part of the Polaris (RX 500) generation, released on 2017-04-19. The GTX 960A is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the RX 550 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die. This gives the RX 550 a significantly higher transistor density (21.4M / mm² vs 12.6M / mm²), reflecting the newer manufacturing process.

The GTX 960A’s Maxwell architecture is optimized for power efficiency in mobile applications, which is why it uses an MXM module form factor. Its shading unit count of 640 is higher than the RX 550’s 512, but the RX 550’s GCN 4.0 architecture supports 1:1 FP16 compute (1,211.4 GFLOPS), which the GTX 960A lacks entirely. The RX 550 also supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the GTX 960A is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) but does support Vulkan 1.4. The RX 550’s memory subsystem is more advanced, with a 1750 MHz memory clock (7 Gbps effective) versus the GTX 960A’s 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yielding higher bandwidth. The RX 550’s successor is listed as Vega, while the GTX 960A’s predecessor is GeForce 800A.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences are numerous. The NVIDIA GTX 960A has a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost clock of 1176 MHz, while the AMD RX 550 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1183 MHz — the AMD card is slightly faster in both metrics. The GTX 960A has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, versus the RX 550’s 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 960A’s pixel rate is 18.82 GPixel/s and texture rate is 47.04 GTexel/s, while the RX 550’s are 18.93 GPixel/s and 37.86 GTexel/s, respectively. FP32 performance is 1.505 TFLOPS for the GTX 960A and 1,211.4 GFLOPS for the RX 550.

The TDP is 75 W for the GTX 960A and 50 W for the RX 550, with the RX 550 having a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 960A uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface and has no power connectors, while the RX 550 uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and also has no power connectors. The RX 550 has a dual-slot form factor and a length of 145 mm (5.7 inches), while the GTX 960A is an MXM module with no listed dimensions. Memory configuration is 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for both, but the GTX 960A has a memory clock of 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s, while the RX 550 has a memory clock of 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) and bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. Display outputs differ: the GTX 960A is "Portable Device Dependent," while the RX 550 offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 550 also has a launch MSRP of 79 USD, which is not listed for the GTX 960A.