AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 represent two very different generations of graphics hardware, and the benchmark data in the database reflects that gap clearly. Across every recorded head-to-head test, the RX 5500 XT wins decisively, with margins that range from roughly 164% to over 664%. The GTX 950, a Maxwell-era card from 2015, cannot match the RDNA 1.0 architecture of the RX 5500 XT in compute, API-level performance, or raw throughput. This analysis walks through the recorded scores, architectural differences, and use-case implications for both cards.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains three direct comparisons between the two cards, and the RX 5500 XT wins all three. The largest margin appears in the Geekbench Metal test, where the RX 5500 XT scores 54,842 against the GTX 950’s 7,172. That is a 664.7% advantage, a massive gap that reflects not only the newer GPU’s higher compute throughput but also its far better support for Apple’s Metal API. For any workflow relying on Metal, the RX 5500 XT is in a different class entirely.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5500 XT records 46,965 points, while the GTX 950 manages 15,662. The delta here is 199.9%, meaning the AMD card is roughly three times faster in this cross-platform compute workload. OpenCL performance matters for scientific simulations, video encoding, and other GPU-accelerated tasks that do not depend on gaming-specific APIs. The data shows that the RX 5500 XT handles these workloads with substantial headroom over the older NVIDIA card.

The Vulkan test shows a similar pattern, though with a slightly smaller margin. The RX 5500 XT scores 44,191, and the GTX 950 scores 16,734, resulting in a 164.1% advantage for AMD. Vulkan is the low-level API used by many modern games and emulators, so this result indicates that the RX 5500 XT will deliver significantly higher frame rates in Vulkan-based titles. Even where the GTX 950 is strongest, which is typically its DirectX 12 support, the RX 5500 XT’s raw shading power overwhelms it.

It is importantly the GTX 950 has no recorded scores for the 3DMark Steel Nomad, PassMark DirectX 9/10/11/12, PassMark G2D, G3D, or GPU Compute tests. The RX 5500 XT, by contrast, has a full suite of benchmarks: 1,032 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, 46 in PassMark DirectX 10, 56 in DirectX 11, 40 in DirectX 12, 133 in DirectX 9, 774 in G2D, 9,083 in G3D, and 4,446 in GPU Compute. The absence of GTX 950 data in these tests means the comparison relies on the three Geekbench results, but those are consistent and unambiguous: the RX 5500 XT wins every recorded head-to-head.

The average benchmark score also tells a clear story. The RX 5500 XT has an average score of 14,692, while the GTX 950 averages 13,189. That puts the AMD card about 11% higher on average, even though the RX 5500 XT’s percentile ranking (57th among all GPUs) is only four points above the GTX 950’s 53rd percentile. Both cards sit in the mid-range of the overall distribution, but the RX 5500 XT is consistently ahead within that tier.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different design philosophies. The RX 5500 XT uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. The GTX 950 uses the GM206 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 2,940 million transistors across a 228 mm² die, for a density of 12.9 million per square millimeter. The process node difference is stark: 7 nm versus 28 nm means the RX 5500 XT packs more than three times the transistor density into a smaller physical area.

Clock speeds reinforce this architectural gap. The RX 5500 XT runs at a base clock of 1,607 MHz, a boost clock of 1,845 MHz, and a game clock of 1,717 MHz. The GTX 950’s base clock is 1,024 MHz, and its boost clock is 1,188 MHz. Even without considering the architectural efficiency of RDNA 1.0 versus Maxwell 2.0, the RX 5500 XT operates at substantially higher frequencies. The memory clocks differ as well: the RX 5500 XT uses 1,750 MHz base memory clock with 14 Gbps effective speed, while the GTX 950 uses 1,653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective speed.

Shading resources are not remotely close. The RX 5500 XT has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines. The GTX 950 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. That means the AMD card has nearly double the shading units and TMUs, while ROP count is identical. The pixel rate for the RX 5500 XT is 59.04 GPixel/s versus 38.02 GPixel/s for the GTX 950. Texture rate is 162.4 GTexel/s versus 57.02 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 5.196 TFLOPS versus 1.825 TFLOPS. The RX 5500 XT also supports FP16 with a 2:1 ratio at 10.39 TFLOPS, a feature the GTX 950 lacks entirely.

Memory configuration further separates the two. The RX 5500 XT has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 950 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 105.8 GB/s. The RX 5500 XT offers double the memory capacity and more than double the bandwidth. The bus interface also differs: the RX 5500 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the GTX 950 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. In practice, the RX 5500 XT’s narrower but newer interface still provides ample bandwidth for its mid-range positioning.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5500 XT wins in every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is heavily one-sided. Its dominance in Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan makes it the clear choice for any application that leverages those APIs. Metal is particularly relevant for macOS users or developers working with Apple platforms, where the RX 5500 XT’s 54,842 score dwarfs the GTX 950’s 7,172. OpenCL workloads, such as video transcoding, physics simulations, or general-purpose GPU compute, also favor the AMD card by a factor of three based on the 199.9% delta.

Vulkan gaming and emulation is another strong area for the RX 5500 XT. The 164.1% advantage in the Vulkan test suggests that modern Vulkan-based games will run at much higher frame rates on the AMD card. The GTX 950’s only potential advantages are its lower power draw and smaller physical footprint in terms of length, but those are not benchmark wins. The GTX 950 has a TDP of 90 W versus 130 W for the RX 5500 XT, and it measures 202 mm (8 inches) compared to 180 mm (7.1 inches) for the AMD card. The RX 5500 XT is actually shorter despite the higher power draw.

For legacy DirectX 9 or DirectX 10 games, the RX 5500 XT has recorded scores of 133 and 46 in PassMark tests, but no comparable GTX 950 data exists. The PassMark G3D score of 9,083 for the RX 5500 XT places it well above the GTX 950’s average benchmark score of 13,189 when normalized across all tests, but again, the GTX 950 lacks direct comparisons in these older APIs. In practical terms, the RX 5500 XT’s higher shading unit count and clock speeds should handle older DirectX titles with ease, but the database does not provide a head-to-head number for those specific tests.

The GTX 950’s niche is efficiency and legacy compatibility. Its 90 W TDP and single 6-pin power connector make it easier to install in older or lower-wattage systems, and its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is universally compatible with older motherboards. But those are qualitative advantages, not benchmark victories. The recorded data shows zero wins for the GTX 950 in any head-to-head test.

Specification Differences

The most relevant specification differences between the two cards are straightforward. The RX 5500 XT uses a 7 nm process, while the GTX 950 uses 28 nm. Transistor count is 6,400 million versus 2,940 million, and die size is 158 mm² versus 228 mm². The RX 5500 XT has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the GTX 950 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Base clock is 1,607 MHz versus 1,024 MHz, boost clock is 1,845 MHz versus 1,188 MHz, and the RX 5500 XT adds a game clock of 1,717 MHz that the GTX 950 lacks.

Memory is a major differentiator: 4 GB GDDR6 versus 2 GB GDDR5, with bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s versus 105.8 GB/s. The memory clock is 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) versus 1,653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective). FP32 compute is 5.196 TFLOPS versus 1.825 TFLOPS, and the RX 5500 XT offers FP16 at 10.39 TFLOPS while the GTX 950 has no FP16 support. Pixel rate is 59.04 GPixel/s versus 38.02 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 162.4 GTexel/s versus 57.02 GTexel/s.

Power and connectivity also differ. The RX 5500 XT has a TDP of 130 W, requires a 1x 8-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W power supply. The GTX 950 has a TDP of 90 W, uses a 1x 6-pin connector, and suggests a 250 W power supply. The RX 5500 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the GTX 950 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.0b and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RX 5500 XT, versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 3x DisplayPort 1.2 for the GTX 950. Both cards are dual-slot, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 5500 XT launched in December 2019 with a launch MSRP of 169 USD, while the GTX 950 launched in August 2015 with a launch MSRP of 159 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better Vulkan performance?

A: The RX 5500 XT scores 44,191 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, while the GTX 950 scores 16,734, giving the AMD card a 164.1% advantage.

Q: Does the GTX 950 win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The RX 5500 XT wins all three recorded head-to-head tests: Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The RX 5500 XT delivers 224.0 GB/s using 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The GTX 950 delivers 105.8 GB/s using 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference?

A: The RX 5500 XT provides 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GTX 950 provides 1.825 TFLOPS. The RX 5500 XT also offers FP16 at 10.39 TFLOPS, which the GTX 950 does not support.

Q: Which card has a lower power draw?

A: The GTX 950 has a TDP of 90 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, while the RX 5500 XT has a TDP of 130 W and requires a 1x 8-pin connector. The GTX 950 also suggests a 250 W power supply versus 300 W for the RX 5500 XT.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. The database lists both as end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 in every recorded benchmark. The smallest margin is 164.1% in Vulkan, and the largest is 664.7% in Metal. The RX 5500 XT’s newer architecture, higher clock speeds, double the memory capacity, and more than double the memory bandwidth make it the stronger card for any modern workload. Its average benchmark score of 14,692 exceeds the GTX 950’s 13,189, and its percentile ranking of 57 versus 53 confirms that it sits higher in the overall GPU distribution.

The GTX 950 retains a niche for users who prioritize low power draw and simpler power connector requirements. Its 90 W TDP and 6-pin connector are easier to accommodate in older systems, and its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface is broadly compatible. But those are practical installation advantages, not performance wins. Anyone choosing between these two cards based on benchmark data should select the RX 5500 XT without hesitation. The only reason to pick the GTX 950 would be a system constraint that cannot support the RX 5500 XT’s 130 W TDP or 8-pin connector, but even then, the RX 5500 XT is a shorter card at 180 mm versus 202 mm, so physical fit is not a barrier. The RX 5500 XT is the definitive winner across compute, API support, and memory performance.