AMD Radeon RX 550 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 delivers 1,211.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M reaches 1.505 TFLOPS. This means the GTX 960M has a roughly 24% higher peak theoretical throughput, a lead that appears in the texture rate as well (47.04 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s).

Q: Which GPU has the higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 wins this category decisively. It offers 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the GTX 960M's 80.19 GB/s. This is a 39.6% advantage for the RX 550, despite both cards using a 128-bit memory bus.

Q: What is the performance gap in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The RX 550 scores 12,270 points in Geekbench Vulkan, while the GTX 960M scores 8,245 points. The RX 550 is a massive 48.8% ahead in this test, making it the largest single-benchmark win for either card.

Q: How do the cards compare in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The results are nearly identical. The RX 550 scores 11,063 points, and the GTX 960M scores 11,045 points. The RX 550 wins by a razor-thin 0.2% margin, indicating effectively parity in this legacy compute API.

Q: Which GPU has a higher overall benchmark percentile?

A: The RX 550 sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 960M sits at the 46th percentile. The RX 550 also has a higher average benchmark score of 11,075 points, compared to 9,645 points for the GTX 960M.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both the AMD Radeon RX 550 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M are listed as end-of-life products. The RX 550 was released on 2017-04-19, while the GTX 960M was released on 2015-03-12.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon RX 550 is built on the GCN 4.0 architecture (chip codename Lexa) and belongs to the Polaris (RX 500) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M is based on the Maxwell architecture (chip GM107) and belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. This generational gap is immediately visible in the manufacturing process: the RX 550 uses a 14 nm node from GlobalFoundries, while the GTX 960M uses a 28 nm node from TSMC. The smaller node allows AMD to pack 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 21.4M per mm². In contrast, NVIDIA's chip contains 1,870 million transistors spread across a larger 148 mm² die, yielding a density of just 12.6M per mm².

The architectural differences extend to the execution units. The RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 960M has more of everything at this level: 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The higher shading unit count helps the GTX 960M achieve its higher FP32 throughput. Neither GPU includes dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which is consistent with their mid-2010s design origins. The RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTX 960M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), which indicates a lower feature level for the NVIDIA card. Both GPUs support OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 550 supports Vulkan 1.3 while the GTX 960M supports Vulkan 1.4, a minor API revision advantage for NVIDIA.

Memory architecture also differs in capacity. The RX 550 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 960M doubles that to 4 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the RX 550 runs its memory at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the GTX 960M, which explains the RX 550's bandwidth advantage. The RX 550 also features a dual-slot form factor with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and discrete display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a). The GTX 960M is an MXM Module using the MXM-B (3.0) interface, with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its laptop-oriented design.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 550 wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, taking the overall match 2 wins to 0. Its most decisive victory comes in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it scores 48.8% higher than the GTX 960M. This suggests the RX 550 is significantly stronger in modern, low-level graphics APIs that leverage explicit multi-threading and reduced driver overhead. This advantage is likely tied to its newer GCN 4.0 architecture and more mature Vulkan driver stack.

The RX 550 also wins the Geekbench OpenCL test, but by a minuscule 0.2% margin (11,063 versus 11,045). This effectively indicates parity in general-purpose compute workloads, meaning the two cards are interchangeable for OpenCL-based tasks. The GTX 960M's only areas of dominance are in theoretical specifications: it has higher peak FP32 throughput, more shading units, more texture units, and a higher texture fill rate. However, these theoretical advantages do not translate into wins in the recorded benchmark suite.

The GTX 960M's 4 GB memory capacity could be an advantage in scenarios requiring larger framebuffers, such as high-resolution textures in modern games, but the recorded data does not include a benchmark that isolates this factor. The RX 550 counters with superior memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s), which is critical for texture-heavy gaming scenes. Overall, the data points to the RX 550 being the more capable GPU in real-world API performance, especially in Vulkan.

Specification Differences

This section highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ.

Process and Die: The RX 550 uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries with a 103 mm² die size. The GTX 960M uses a 28 nm process from TSMC with a 148 mm² die size. Transistor counts: 2,200 million for AMD, 1,870 million for NVIDIA. Transistor density: 21.4M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm².

Clocks: The RX 550 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1183 MHz. The GTX 960M has a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost clock of 1176 MHz. Memory clocks are 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) for AMD and 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA.

Memory: The RX 550 has 2 GB of GDDR5; the GTX 960M has 4 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth: 112.0 GB/s for AMD versus 80.19 GB/s for NVIDIA.

Compute Units: The RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 960M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

Throughput: Pixel rate is nearly identical (18.93 GPixel/s for AMD, 18.82 GPixel/s for NVIDIA). Texture rate differs: 37.86 GTexel/s for AMD versus 47.04 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32: 1,211.4 GFLOPS for AMD versus 1.505 TFLOPS for NVIDIA. The RX 550 supports FP16 at 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the GTX 960M has no recorded FP16 capability.

Power and Form Factor: The RX 550 has a TDP of 50 W and is a dual-slot card with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 960M has a TDP of 75 W and is an MXM Module. The RX 550 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface; the GTX 960M uses MXM-B (3.0).

API Support: DirectX: RX 550 supports 12 (12_0); GTX 960M supports 12 (11_0). Vulkan: RX 550 supports 1.3; GTX 960M supports 1.4. OpenGL is 4.6 for both.

Release and Status: The RX 550 was released on 2017-04-19 and has a launch MSRP of 79 USD. The GTX 960M was released on 2015-03-12 with no recorded launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data includes two direct benchmark comparisons between the AMD Radeon RX 550 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M, both from Geekbench.

The first test is Geekbench OpenCL. The RX 550 scores 11,063 points, while the GTX 960M scores 11,045 points. The delta is 0.2% in favor of AMD. This is effectively a statistical tie. It is remarkable that a 50 W desktop card matches a 75 W mobile module in this compute workload, despite the GTX 960M having 25% more shading units and 24% higher peak FP32 throughput. The RX 550's higher memory bandwidth likely compensates for its lower compute ceiling in this memory-sensitive test.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan. Here the RX 550 pulls far ahead, scoring 12,270 points versus 8,245 points for the GTX 960M. This is a 48.8% margin, which is the largest performance gap seen in the entire head-to-head data. The result implies that the RX 550's GCN 4.0 architecture is far more efficient at handling Vulkan's explicit command buffers and multi-threaded submission model. The GTX 960M's Maxwell architecture, which predates Vulkan's widespread adoption, appears to struggle with this modern API.

The average benchmark score also reflects this overall trend. The RX 550 has an average score of 11,075 points across all its recorded benchmarks, while the GTX 960M averages 9,645 points. This is a 14.8% higher average for the RX 550. The RX 550's nearest rival in the database is the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, which scores 11,088 points, a 0.1% difference. The GTX 960M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K5000, which scores 9,637 points, a 0.1% difference. These proximity values confirm that the RX 550 sits in a higher performance tier than the GTX 960M, despite their similar release dates and market positions.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear hierarchy. The AMD Radeon RX 550 is the superior GPU in the recorded benchmarks, winning both head-to-head tests and holding a higher average score (11,075 versus 9,645). The RX 550 also occupies a higher percentile in the global GPU ranking (50th versus 46th), which places it above more than half of all GPUs in the database.

For users prioritizing modern API performance, especially Vulkan, the RX 550 is the only choice. Its 48.8% lead in Geekbench Vulkan is a decisive margin that suggests far better frame pacing and draw call handling in contemporary game engines. The RX 550 also offers higher memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s), which is a critical asset for texture-heavy workloads. Its lower TDP of 50 W, versus 75 W for the GTX 960M, makes it a more power-efficient desktop solution.

The GTX 960M retains a few specification-level advantages. Its 4 GB memory capacity is double the RX 550's 2 GB, which could be relevant for workloads that exceed the 2 GB framebuffer limit. Its higher FP32 throughput (1.505 TFLOPS versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS) and texture rate (47.04 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s) suggest it has untapped theoretical compute potential, but the recorded benchmarks show that this potential is not realized in OpenCL or Vulkan. The GTX 960M also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3 for the RX 550, a minor API version advantage.

The practical guidance is straightforward. For desktop users building a legacy or low-power system, the RX 550 is the better performer in the measured tests. For users with a laptop or an MXM-based system, the GTX 960M is the only applicable option, despite its benchmark disadvantages. The RX 550's launch MSRP of 79 USD also establishes it as a modestly priced card, though the database does not record a comparable price for the GTX 960M. In every recorded benchmark, the AMD card wins. The record shows that architectural age matters: the 14 nm GCN 4.0 design of the RX 550 outperforms the 28 nm Maxwell design of the GTX 960M, particularly in Vulkan where the newer architecture's strengths are fully exposed.