AMD Radeon RX 550X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparison between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A and the AMD Radeon RX 550X. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 960A scores 11998, while the RX 550X manages 9662. That gives the NVIDIA part a decisive 24.2% advantage in raw compute throughput. This is a substantial margin for two mobile-oriented graphics solutions, and it places the GTX 960A in a higher performance tier despite its older architecture.

Looking at the percentile rankings, the GTX 960A sits at the 51st percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the RX 550X sits at the 49th percentile. The gap between them in the overall distribution is small, but the OpenCL result shows the GTX 960A punches above its percentile position relative to this specific rival. The RX 550X’s average benchmark score across its two recorded tests (OpenCL and Vulkan) is 10481, which is still below the GTX 960A’s single OpenCL score of 11998.

For context, the GTX 960A’s nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080, which scores 11960 (only 0.3% behind the GTX 960A), and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT, which scores 11842 (1.3% behind). This means the GTX 960A, despite its modest specifications, keeps pace with much newer discrete desktop cards in compute workloads. The RX 550X, by contrast, sits near the AMD Radeon R9 M275X, which scores 10582 (the RX 550X is 1% behind that card), and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S, which scores 10629 (the RX 550X trails by 1.4%).

The head-to-head record is one win for the GTX 960A and zero for the RX 550X. There is no recorded Vulkan comparison between the two, though the RX 550X does have a Vulkan score of 11299 in the database. That result is notably higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the RX 550X’s compute performance varies more across different API workloads than the GTX 960A’s does.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages and different manufacturing processes. The GTX 960A uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, built on the GM107 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a die size of 148 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.6 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 550X uses AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture, built on the Lexa chip, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. It contains 2,200 million transistors on a smaller die of 103 mm², yielding a much higher transistor density of 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ significantly. The GTX 960A has 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units, while the RX 550X has 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units. Both have 16 raster output units. The GTX 960A therefore has 25% more shading units and 25% more TMUs than the RX 550X, which explains its higher raw compute throughput. However, the RX 550X compensates with higher clock speeds: its base clock is 1100 MHz and boost clock is 1183 MHz, compared to the GTX 960A’s 1097 MHz base and 1176 MHz boost. The clock differences are small, though, and do not overcome the GTX 960A’s shader advantage.

Memory configurations also differ. The GTX 960A comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 550X offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but with a higher memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the GTX 960A’s 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), resulting in 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 550X thus has twice the memory capacity and about 20% more bandwidth, which can matter in texture-heavy or large-dataset workloads.

The compute capabilities show a clear split. The GTX 960A achieves 1.505 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, with no recorded FP16 support. The RX 550X delivers 1,211.4 GFLOPS of FP32 and the same 1,211.4 GFLOPS of FP16, at a 1:1 ratio. This means the GTX 960A has roughly 24% higher FP32 throughput, while the RX 550X offers FP16 support that the GTX 960A lacks entirely. Pixel rates are nearly identical: 18.82 GPixel/s for the GTX 960A and 18.93 GPixel/s for the RX 550X. Texture rates differ more, with the GTX 960A achieving 47.04 GTexel/s versus the RX 550X’s 37.86 GTexel/s.

Power and interface characteristics diverge sharply. The GTX 960A has a TDP of 75 W and uses an MXM Module form factor with a bus interface of MXM-B (3.0). The RX 550X has a much lower TDP of 50 W, uses a Dual-slot form factor, and connects via PCIe 3.0 x8. Neither card requires external power connectors, but the RX 550X includes a suggested PSU rating of 250 W, while the GTX 960A has no such figure in the database. The RX 550X also has explicit display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a), whereas the GTX 960A’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

API support differs in DirectX and Vulkan versions. The GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The RX 550X’s DirectX 12 (12_0) support is a feature-level advantage over the GTX 960A’s 11_0, which can affect compatibility with certain modern titles.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 960A wins decisively in raw compute performance, as evidenced by its 24.2% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test. This makes it the stronger choice for general-purpose compute workloads, such as OpenCL-accelerated applications, physics simulations, or any task that leverages FP32 shader throughput. Its higher TMU count and texture rate also give it an edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios, though the RX 550X’s higher bandwidth partially offsets this in memory-heavy workloads.

The RX 550X wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. With 4 GB versus 2 GB, it can handle larger textures and datasets without spilling to system memory. Its 96.00 GB/s bandwidth is about 20% higher than the GTX 960A’s 80.19 GB/s, which can benefit games with high-resolution textures or compute tasks that stream large amounts of data. The RX 550X also has lower power consumption at 50 W versus 75 W, making it more suitable for compact or thermally constrained systems.

In terms of API modernity, the RX 550X’s DirectX 12 (12_0) support is a clear advantage over the GTX 960A’s DirectX 12 (11_0). Games or applications that require DX12 feature level 12_0 will run on the RX 550X but may be limited on the GTX 960A. The GTX 960A counters with Vulkan 1.4 support versus the RX 550X’s Vulkan 1.3, which could matter for Vulkan-based workloads that use newer extensions.

For gaming, the GTX 960A’s higher shading unit count and texture rate suggest it will outperform the RX 550X in most titles, especially at lower resolutions where memory capacity is less limiting. However, the RX 550X’s 4 GB frame buffer and higher bandwidth give it an edge in modern games with large texture packs or at higher resolutions, where the GTX 960A’s 2 GB could become a bottleneck.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications reveal the following differences between the two cards:

• Process node: GTX 960A is 28 nm (TSMC); RX 550X is 14 nm (GlobalFoundries).
• Transistors: GTX 960A has 1,870 million; RX 550X has 2,200 million.
• Die size: GTX 960A is 148 mm²; RX 550X is 103 mm².
• Transistor density: GTX 960A is 12.6M / mm²; RX 550X is 21.4M / mm².
• Base clock: GTX 960A is 1097 MHz; RX 550X is 1100 MHz.
• Boost clock: GTX 960A is 1176 MHz; RX 550X is 1183 MHz.
• Memory clock: GTX 960A is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective); RX 550X is 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).
• Memory size: GTX 960A is 2 GB; RX 550X is 4 GB.
• Memory bandwidth: GTX 960A is 80.19 GB/s; RX 550X is 96.00 GB/s.
• Shading units: GTX 960A has 640; RX 550X has 512.
• TMUs: GTX 960A has 40; RX 550X has 32.
• Texture rate: GTX 960A is 47.04 GTexel/s; RX 550X is 37.86 GTexel/s.
• FP32 performance: GTX 960A is 1.505 TFLOPS; RX 550X is 1,211.4 GFLOPS.
• FP16 performance: GTX 960A has none recorded; RX 550X is 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1).
• TDP: GTX 960A is 75 W; RX 550X is 50 W.
• Slot width: GTX 960A is MXM Module; RX 550X is Dual-slot.
• Bus interface: GTX 960A is MXM-B (3.0); RX 550X is PCIe 3.0 x8.
• Display outputs: GTX 960A is portable device dependent; RX 550X is 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.
• DirectX support: GTX 960A is 12 (11_0); RX 550X is 12 (12_0).
• Vulkan support: GTX 960A is 1.4; RX 550X is 1.3.
• Release date: GTX 960A is 2015-03-12; RX 550X is 2018-12-15.
• Predecessor: GTX 960A is GeForce 800A; RX 550X is Polaris.
• Successor: GTX 960A has none recorded; RX 550X is Vega.
• Length: GTX 960A has no recorded length; RX 550X is 145 mm (5.7 inches).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The GTX 960A delivers 1.505 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the RX 550X offers 1,211.4 GFLOPS. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 960A scores 11998 versus 9662 for the RX 550X, a 24.2% lead.

Q: Does the RX 550X have more memory?

A: Yes, the RX 550X has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the GTX 960A has 2 GB. The RX 550X also has higher bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX features?

A: The RX 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTX 960A only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). This means the RX 550X can run applications that require the 12_0 feature level.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The GTX 960A has a TDP of 75 W, while the RX 550X has a TDP of 50 W. The RX 550X also includes a suggested PSU rating of 250 W, while the GTX 960A has no recorded suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU is better for Vulkan workloads?

A: The GTX 960A supports Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 550X supports Vulkan 1.3. However, the RX 550X has a recorded Vulkan score of 11299, though no direct Vulkan comparison exists between the two cards.

Q: What are the form factor differences?

A: The GTX 960A is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the RX 550X is a Dual-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and a length of 145 mm.