AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M Comparison

The benchmark data places the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M in adjacent performance tiers, with the RX 5500 XT holding a clear lead. The RX 5500 XT’s average benchmark score of 14,692 sits 2% above the GTX 965M’s 14,404, a margin that places both cards within the 56th and 57th percentiles of all GPUs respectively. The head-to-head results, however, are far from close.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available direct comparisons show a decisive victory for the AMD card. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5500 XT scores 46,965 against the GTX 965M’s 14,509, a delta of 223.7%. That is more than a threefold advantage in raw compute throughput. The Vulkan result is similarly lopsided: 44,191 for the RX 5500 XT versus 14,299 for the GTX 965M, a 209% difference. These are not marginal gains; the RX 5500 XT more than doubles the GTX 965M’s output in both API tests.

The story changes slightly when looking at the broader rival landscape. The RX 5500 XT’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770, which averages 14,747 and trails by just 0.4%. The GTX 965M, by contrast, sits just 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11. This suggests that while the RX 5500 XT dominates the GTX 965M in these specific tests, it is not universally faster than all older NVIDIA parts—the GTX 770 remains essentially tied. The GTX 965M, however, is firmly in a cluster with integrated-class parts like the Vega 11 and Intel Iris Xe MAX, which trails by 0.6%.

The win count is unambiguous: the RX 5500 XT takes 2 wins, the GTX 965M takes 0. No benchmark in the shared set favors the NVIDIA card. The magnitude of the deltas—223.7% and 209%—indicates a generational gap rather than a slight spec sheet advantage.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The RX 5500 XT uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 7 nm process at TSMC. The GTX 965M uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is enormous: 7 nm versus 28 nm, which directly explains the transistor density figures. The RX 5500 XT packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 965M has 5,200 million transistors spread across a much larger 398 mm² die, giving a density of just 13.1 million per square millimeter.

Clock speeds amplify the architectural advantage. The RX 5500 XT runs a base clock of 1607 MHz and boosts to 1845 MHz, with a game clock of 1717 MHz. The GTX 965M’s base clock is 924 MHz, boosting to only 950 MHz. This near-doubling of clock speed on the AMD side is a direct consequence of the smaller process node. The memory subsystems diverge as well: the RX 5500 XT uses 4 GB of GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, yielding 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 965M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the same 128-bit bus, but achieves only 80.19 GB/s. That is nearly a threefold bandwidth deficit for the NVIDIA card.

Compute resources also favor the RX 5500 XT. It has 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 965M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The pixel rate tells the story: 59.04 GPixel/s for the RX 5500 XT versus 30.40 GPixel/s for the GTX 965M. Texture rate is 162.4 GTexel/s versus 60.80 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 5.196 TFLOPS against 1.946 TFLOPS. The RX 5500 XT also supports FP16 at 10.39 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the GTX 965M has no listed FP16 capability.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 5500 XT wins in every measurable category from the data. It is faster in compute APIs, has more memory, higher bandwidth, and a more advanced feature set. The GTX 965M’s only advantage is its form factor: it ships as an MXM Module with no power connectors, intended for portable devices. The RX 5500 XT is a dual-slot card requiring a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU.

For gaming workloads, the RX 5500 XT’s higher pixel rate and texture rate translate directly to better fill-rate-bound scenarios. The 224.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 80.19 GB/s means texture-heavy scenes and higher resolutions will favor the AMD card. The 4 GB memory capacity is double the GTX 965M’s 2 GB, which matters for modern game assets. The GTX 965M, being a mobile part, would only be chosen for a laptop or small-form-factor system where the MXM form factor is a requirement.

The compute workloads show an even larger gap. The OpenCL score of 46,965 versus 14,509 indicates the RX 5500 XT is in a different performance class for GPGPU tasks. Vulkan results follow the same pattern. The GTX 965M’s nearest rivals include the Intel Iris Xe MAX Graphics, which is an integrated-class solution, further confirming its position as a low-power mobile part rather than a performance competitor.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the RX 5500 XT than the GTX 965M in OpenCL?

A: The RX 5500 XT scores 46,965 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GTX 965M scores 14,509, resulting in a 223.7% advantage for the AMD card.

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

A: The RX 5500 XT has a memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The GTX 965M has 80.19 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus width.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1) and also list OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4 support.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RX 5500 XT has a density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter, while the GTX 965M has 13.1 million per square millimeter.

Q: What is the FP32 throughput for each GPU?

A: The RX 5500 XT delivers 5.196 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, whereas the GTX 965M delivers 1.946 TFLOPS.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the GTX 965M wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark set, the RX 5500 XT wins 2 tests and the GTX 965M wins 0.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1607 MHz | 924 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1845 MHz | 950 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1408 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 88 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 59.04 GPixel/s | 30.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 162.4 GTexel/s | 60.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.196 TFLOPS | 1.946 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 10.39 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 130 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Release Date | 2019-12-11 | 2015-01-08 |

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous choice for anyone comparing these two GPUs. The AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M by over 200% in both available compute benchmarks, holds a 2% lead in average benchmark score, and offers more than double the memory bandwidth and FP32 throughput. The RX 5500 XT is the only reasonable pick for desktop gaming or any compute workload. Its 57th percentile standing, with rivals like the GTX 770 within 0.4%, shows it holds its own against older desktop parts.

The GTX 965M is not without a niche. Its MXM Module form factor, lack of power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs make it a candidate only for specific laptop replacements or proprietary systems where the RX 5500 XT’s dual-slot, 8-pin design cannot fit. For users constrained to that form factor, the GTX 965M’s 56th percentile and 0.1% lead over the Radeon RX Vega 11 indicate it is a competent but dated mobile solution. From a pure performance standpoint, the RX 5500 XT wins every benchmark, every architectural comparison, and every capability metric in the fact pack. The verdict is simple: choose the RX 5500 XT unless the MXM form factor is an absolute requirement.