AMD Radeon RX 5500M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5500M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 represent two very different eras of mobile and desktop graphics, separated by a four-year generational gap. The data shows a decisive performance advantage for the AMD part across every shared benchmark, with the RX 5500M delivering anywhere from 113% to over 600% higher scores depending on the API. However, the GTX 950, a desktop card from 2015, still holds its own in the broader performance percentile rankings, landing just one point behind its newer competitor. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural shifts, and practical use cases for each GPU based strictly on the provided data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the head-to-head comparison is in the Geekbench Metal test, where the AMD Radeon RX 5500M scores 50,359 points against the GTX 950's 7,172 points. That translates to a 602.2% delta, meaning the AMD card is roughly seven times faster in this specific Apple-oriented API. This is not a marginal victory; it is a complete blowout that reflects both the architectural leap and the fact that the RX 5500M is a much newer product designed for modern compute workloads. The GTX 950's Maxwell architecture was never optimized for Metal, so this result is unsurprising, but the sheer magnitude of the gap is worth noting.

Moving to Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5500M again wins decisively, scoring 38,725 versus 15,662 for the GTX 950. The 147.3% delta here is substantial but less extreme than Metal, suggesting that OpenCL is a more level playing field for the older NVIDIA card. Still, the AMD part more than doubles the NVIDIA GPU's output, driven by its higher shader count, faster memory, and newer RDNA 1.0 architecture. In Vulkan, the gap narrows further but remains lopsided: the RX 5500M scores 35,693 against 16,734, a 113.3% advantage. Vulkan is a low-level API that tends to favor efficient architectures, and while the GTX 950 manages its best relative showing here, it still trails by a factor of over two.

The wins tally is 3-0 in favor of the RX 5500M, with no benchmark where the GTX 950 comes out ahead. That said, the GTX 950's average benchmark score across all tests is 13,189, which is only about 1.3% lower than the RX 5500M's average of 13,356. This apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that the two GPUs were tested on different benchmark suites: the RX 5500M has ten recorded scores while the GTX 950 only has three. The head-to-head tests are where the RX 5500M shines, but the broader average includes many older DirectX and compute tests where the GTX 950's legacy drivers and desktop positioning keep it competitive.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon RX 5500M is the clear performance winner for anyone prioritizing modern API workloads. Its 602.2% lead in Metal, 147.3% lead in OpenCL, and 113.3% lead in Vulkan make it the obvious choice for compute-heavy tasks or gaming on Linux or Vulkan-based titles. The RX 5500M also offers 4 GB of GDDR6 memory versus 2 GB of GDDR5, which in practice means it can handle larger textures and higher resolutions without running out of frame buffer. The average benchmark score of 13,356 and 54th percentile ranking among all GPUs further solidify its position as a mid-range performer that punches above its 85 W TDP.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950, however, is not without merit. Its average score of 13,189 and 53rd percentile ranking place it almost exactly on par with the RX 5500M in overall historical performance, despite being from 2015. This is remarkable for a card that was launched at a 159 USD MSRP and uses 28 nm technology versus the RX 5500M's 7 nm node. For users with legacy software that favors NVIDIA's mature Maxwell drivers, or for those who need a dual-slot desktop card with a 1x 6-pin power connector, the GTX 950 remains a serviceable option. But strictly from the benchmark data, anyone choosing between these two for new workloads should pick the RX 5500M without hesitation.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is immense. The AMD Radeon RX 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 7 nm process at TSMC. It packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, giving it a transistor density of 40.5 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950 uses the GM206 chip based on Maxwell 2.0, built on a 28 nm process also at TSMC. It contains 2,940 million transistors on a much larger 228 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 12.9 million per square millimeter. This means the RX 5500M crams more than three times as many transistors per area, enabling higher performance and efficiency.

The memory subsystem also differs dramatically. The RX 5500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory with a 128-bit bus, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 950 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with the same 128-bit bus, but only achieves 105.8 GB/s. That is a 118% bandwidth advantage for the AMD card, which directly impacts texture-heavy workloads and high-resolution gaming. Clock speeds tell a similar story: the RX 5500M boosts to 1645 MHz with a base of 1375 MHz, while the GTX 950 boosts to 1188 MHz from a 1024 MHz base. The RX 5500M also has a "game" clock of 1448 MHz, a feature absent on the older card.

Compute resources are heavily skewed toward AMD as well. The RX 5500M has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). The GTX 950 has 768 shaders, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 52.64 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 144.8 GTexel/s for the AMD card, versus 38.02 GPixel/s and 57.02 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA card. In FP32 compute, the RX 5500M delivers 4.632 TFLOPS, more than double the GTX 950's 1.825 TFLOPS, and it even supports FP16 at 9.265 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, a feature the GTX 950 lacks entirely. Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the RX 5500M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface while the GTX 950 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 5500M has an average benchmark score of 13,356, which is slightly higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950's 13,189, a difference of about 1.3%.

Q: How much faster is the RX 5500M in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RX 5500M scores 35,693 in Geekbench Vulkan compared to the GTX 950's 16,734, giving the AMD card a 113.3% performance advantage.

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

A: The RX 5500M has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, while the GTX 950 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the RX 5500M achieves 224.0 GB/s bandwidth versus 105.8 GB/s.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RX 5500M has a transistor density of 40.5 million per mm² on its 7 nm process, while the GTX 950 has 12.9 million per mm² on its 28 nm process.

Q: Does the GTX 950 support FP16 compute?

A: No, the GTX 950 has no recorded FP16 capability. The RX 5500M supports FP16 at 9.265 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio.

Q: Which GPU ranks higher among all GPUs by percentile?

A: The RX 5500M ranks in the 54th percentile, while the GTX 950 ranks in the 53rd percentile, making them nearly equivalent in overall standing.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5500M wins in every scenario where modern API support and raw compute throughput matter. Its 602.2% lead in Metal makes it the only viable choice for macOS or iOS development environments that rely on this API. The 147.3% advantage in OpenCL means it excels at general-purpose GPU computing tasks like video encoding, machine learning inference, and scientific simulations. For Vulkan-based gaming, the 113.3% lead gives it a clear edge in titles that use this low-overhead API, and its 4 GB frame buffer allows for higher texture quality settings without stuttering.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950, despite losing all head-to-head benchmarks, has its own niche. Its 53rd percentile ranking and average score of 13,189 indicate that it remains competitive in legacy DirectX workloads, where NVIDIA's mature drivers for GeForce 900 series cards are well-optimized. Its 90 W TDP and dual-slot design with a 1x 6-pin power connector make it a straightforward drop-in for older desktop systems, and its 202 mm length fits most cases. For users running older games that predate Vulkan or for those who need a simple, low-cost desktop GPU with proven driver support, the GTX 950 still serves a purpose, though its 2 GB memory is a hard limit for modern titles.

In summary, the RX 5500M is the superior GPU for any current or future workload, with overwhelming wins in all three shared benchmarks. The GTX 950 is a relic that survives on legacy support and its 159 USD launch MSRP, but the data shows it is outclassed by a factor of two to seven in modern APIs. Choose the RX 5500M for performance; choose the GTX 950 only if you have a specific compatibility requirement.