AMD Radeon RX 5500M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080, which wins 8 of the 10 head-to-head comparisons. The AMD Radeon RX 5500M manages two wins, both in Geekbench API tests, but the margin analysis reveals a fundamentally different performance profile between the two mobile-capable graphics processors.

The most striking result in the database is the Geekbench Metal score. The AMD Radeon RX 5500M posts 50,359 points against 23,824 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080, a 111.4% advantage. This is the single largest delta in either direction across all recorded tests. The RX 5500M also wins the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 35,693 versus 30,398, a 17.4% edge. These results indicate that the AMD part has a significant strength in low-level API workloads on the Metal and Vulkan paths.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 dominates every PassMark test. In DirectX 11, the GTX 1080 scores 124 against 35 for the RX 5500M, a 71.8% deficit for the AMD part. DirectX 10 shows a similar pattern: 93 versus 39, a 58.1% gap. DirectX 12 results place the GTX 1080 at 55 and the RX 5500M at 28, a 49.1% difference. Even in DirectX 9, the oldest API tested, the GTX 1080 leads 211 to 100, a 52.6% margin.

The compute and rasterization tests reinforce the NVIDIA advantage. PassMark G3D shows the GTX 1080 at 15,586 against 5,848, a 62.5% lead. PassMark GPU Compute gives the GTX 1080 a 69.6% advantage, scoring 7,614 versus 2,316. The 2D test also favors NVIDIA, with 888 against 414, a 53.4% gap. OpenCL results are the exception among compute workloads: the GTX 1080 leads 51,204 to 38,725, a 24.4% margin, which is the smallest NVIDIA win in the dataset.

Looking at the overall average benchmark scores, the RX 5500M sits at 13,356, while the GTX 1080 averages 11,960. This counterintuitive result occurs because the Geekbench Metal and Vulkan scores for the AMD part are high enough to lift its average despite losing most individual tests. The RX 5500M ranks in the 54th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the GTX 1080 sits at the 51st percentile. The nearest recorded rivals for the RX 5500M include the AMD FirePro M6100 at 13,354 (a 0% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8950M at 13,376 (a 0.1% delta), and the AMD Radeon Pro 555X at 13,321 (a 0.3% delta). The GTX 1080's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A at 11,998 (a 0.3% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT at 11,842 (a 1% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 at 11,680 (a 2.4% delta).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design eras. The AMD Radeon RX 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip built on the RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm TSMC process. It belongs to the Navi Mobile generation within the RX 5000M series. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 uses the GP104 chip based on the Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm TSMC process, and belongs to the GeForce 10 generation. Both are end-of-life products in the database.

Transistor counts and die sizes reveal the physical differences. The Navi 14 chip packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. The GP104 die contains 7,200 million transistors across 314 mm², a density of 22.9 million per square millimeter. The AMD part achieves nearly double the transistor density due to the newer process node, while the NVIDIA chip uses a substantially larger die.

Memory configurations differ sharply. The RX 5500M carries 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1080 ships with 8 GB of GDDR5X memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 320.3 GB/s. The memory clock rates also diverge: the RX 5500M runs at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective data rate, while the GTX 1080 runs at 1251 MHz with 10 Gbps effective. The NVIDIA part's wider bus compensates for its lower clock rate, resulting in higher overall bandwidth.

Compute resources favor the NVIDIA chip. The GTX 1080 has 2,560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The RX 5500M has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel fill rates reflect this: the GTX 1080 reaches 110.9 GPixel/s, while the RX 5500M manages 52.64 GPixel/s. Texture fill rates show a similar pattern, with the GTX 1080 at 277.3 GTexel/s versus 144.8 GTexel/s for the AMD part.

Floating-point performance also differs substantially. The GTX 1080 delivers 8.873 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the RX 5500M delivers 4.632 TFLOPS. The FP16 results are notable for their architectural contrast. The RX 5500M achieves 9.265 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio to FP32, indicating strong half-precision throughput. The GTX 1080 manages only 138.6 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio, showing that Pascal has minimal FP16 acceleration relative to FP32.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 5500M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the GTX 1080 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Power requirements differ, with the RX 5500M rated at 85 W TDP and the GTX 1080 at 180 W. The GTX 1080 requires a dual-slot cooler, a single 8-pin power connector, and a suggested 450 W power supply, whereas the RX 5500M has no power connectors listed and is described as portable device dependent for display outputs. The GTX 1080 measures 267 mm in length, 112 mm in height, and 40 mm in width, while the RX 5500M has no physical dimensions recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Metal performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5500M wins decisively, scoring 50,359 against 23,824 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080, a 111.4% advantage.

Q: How do the two compare in DirectX 11 benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 dominates, scoring 124 versus 35 for the RX 5500M, a 71.8% lead for the NVIDIA part.

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

A: The GTX 1080 provides 320.3 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, while the RX 5500M provides 224.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 delivers 8.873 TFLOPS, nearly double the 4.632 TFLOPS of the AMD Radeon RX 5500M.

Q: What are the process node differences?

A: The RX 5500M uses a 7 nm TSMC process with a 158 mm² die, while the GTX 1080 uses a 16 nm TSMC process with a 314 mm² die.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each GPU record in the head-to-head data?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 wins 8 tests, while the AMD Radeon RX 5500M wins 2 tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 5500M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Pascal |

| Process node | 7 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 7,200 million |

| Die size | 158 mm² | 314 mm² |

| Transistor density | 40.5M / mm² | 22.9M / mm² |

| Base clock | 1375 MHz | 1607 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1645 MHz | 1733 MHz |

| Game clock | 1448 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR5X |

| Memory bus | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 320.3 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1408 | 2560 |

| Texture mapping units | 88 | 160 |

| Raster output units | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel rate | 52.64 GPixel/s | 110.9 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 144.8 GTexel/s | 277.3 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 4.632 TFLOPS | 8.873 TFLOPS |

| FP16 performance | 9.265 TFLOPS (2:1) | 138.6 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 85 W | 180 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

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

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 450 W |

| Slot width | Not specified | Dual-slot |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 267 mm x 112 mm x 40 mm |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Release date | 2019-10-06 | 2016-05-26 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 599 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5500M wins in two specific areas. First, in Metal API workloads, it demonstrates a massive 111.4% advantage over the GTX 1080, making it the clear choice for applications that leverage Apple's Metal graphics interface. Second, in Vulkan workloads, it leads by 17.4%, suggesting stronger optimization for this cross-platform low-level API. The RX 5500M also shows architectural efficiency advantages: its 7 nm process delivers 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter versus 22.9 million for the GTX 1080, and its 85 W TDP is less than half of the GTX 1080's 180 W requirement. The AMD part's FP16 throughput of 9.265 TFLOPS at a 2:1 ratio indicates a design suited for workloads that can exploit half-precision arithmetic.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 wins across the broader spectrum of traditional graphics workloads. In DirectX 11, DirectX 10, DirectX 12, and DirectX 9 tests, it leads by margins ranging from 49.1% to 71.8%. The PassMark G3D test shows a 62.5% advantage, and the GPU Compute test shows a 69.6% advantage. The GTX 1080's higher shading unit count (2,560 versus 1,408), larger memory capacity (8 GB versus 4 GB), and wider memory bus (256-bit versus 128-bit) contribute to its dominance in rasterization and compute-heavy tasks. Its pixel rate of 110.9 GPixel/s and texture rate of 277.3 GTexel/s are roughly double the RX 5500M's figures, which translates directly to higher fill rates in real-world rendering.

For the OpenCL workload, the GTX 1080 leads by 24.4%, a narrower margin than its DirectX wins but still a clear advantage. The average benchmark score comparison is unusual: the RX 5500M averages 13,356 overall, while the GTX 1080 averages 11,960. This reflects the RX 5500M's exceptional Metal score pulling up its average, despite losing the majority of tests.

The use-case split is therefore clear. For applications built around Metal or Vulkan, particularly in environments where those APIs are the primary rendering paths, the RX 5500M offers competitive or superior performance. For everything else, including the full range of DirectX titles, general GPU compute, and 2D workloads, the GTX 1080 is the stronger performer. The GTX 1080 also offers double the memory capacity and significantly higher memory bandwidth, which matters for large textures and higher resolutions. The RX 5500M's lower power draw and smaller die make it a more efficient part, but the recorded data shows that efficiency does not translate into broad performance leadership in this comparison.