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

# AMD Radeon RX 550X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M

The comparison between the AMD Radeon RX 550X and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M is a study in contrasting design philosophies from two different mobile GPU generations. The RX 550X, built on AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture with a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, squares off against the GTX 960M, which uses NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process. Each card wins exactly one of the two head-to-head benchmark tests, with the AMD card taking the Vulkan test by a wide margin and the NVIDIA card dominating the OpenCL test. The average benchmark scores are remarkably close — 10481 for the RX 550X versus 9645 for the GTX 960M — placing both cards in the lower-middle tier of the GPU landscape, with the RX 550X at the 49th percentile and the GTX 960M at the 46th percentile of all GPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark tests tell dramatically different stories about these GPUs. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M scores 11045 against the AMD Radeon RX 550X's 9662, a 12.5% advantage for the NVIDIA card. This is the larger absolute gap in either test, and it reflects the GTX 960M's higher raw compute throughput. The GTX 960M delivers 1.505 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the RX 550X manages 1,211.4 GFLOPS — a difference that shows up directly in OpenCL workloads that leverage general-purpose compute. The GTX 960M's 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units provide a substantial hardware advantage over the RX 550X's 512 shading units and 32 TMUs.

The Vulkan test flips the script entirely. Here, the AMD Radeon RX 550X scores 11299 against the GTX 960M's 8245, a commanding 37% victory for AMD. This is a much larger percentage swing than the OpenCL result, suggesting that the RX 550X's architecture handles Vulkan's modern API features more efficiently. The RX 550X supports Vulkan 1.3, while the GTX 960M lists Vulkan 1.4 in its specifications, but the actual benchmark performance favors the older GCN architecture in this specific workload. This 37% delta is the single largest performance difference between the two cards in any metric, and it dominates the overall comparison.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the RX 550X's average score of 10481 places it alongside the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 at 10400 (0.8% difference) and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X at 10582 (-1% difference). The GTX 960M's average of 9645 sits near the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 at 9637 (0.1%) and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9653 (-0.1%). Both cards occupy similar performance tiers, but the RX 550X edges ahead in average score by 836 points, or approximately 8.7%. The wins are split evenly — one benchmark victory each — which makes the overall comparison a matter of workload preference rather than outright superiority.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M wins in OpenCL compute workloads. Its 12.5% advantage in the Geekbench OpenCL test is supported by its higher FP32 throughput of 1.505 TFLOPS, which exceeds the RX 550X's 1,211.4 GFLOPS by roughly 24%. The GTX 960M also has more texture processing capability, with a texture rate of 47.04 GTexel/s compared to the RX 550X's 37.86 GTexel/s. For applications that rely heavily on general-purpose GPU computing through OpenCL — such as certain physics simulations, video encoding tasks, or scientific workloads — the GTX 960M is the stronger choice. Its 640 shading units provide 25% more compute units than the RX 550X, and the Maxwell architecture's efficiency in traditional compute pipelines shows in the benchmark results.

The AMD Radeon RX 550X wins decisively in Vulkan graphics workloads. The 37% margin in the Geekbench Vulkan test is substantial, and it points to architectural strengths in modern graphics API execution. The RX 550X's GCN 4.0 architecture, which powers the Polaris generation, was designed with explicit multi-threading and low-level API efficiency in mind. Its Vulkan 1.3 support, combined with the architecture's asynchronous compute capabilities, delivers a significantly better experience in Vulkan-based games and applications. The RX 550X also maintains a slight edge in pixel fill rate, with 18.93 GPixel/s versus the GTX 960M's 18.82 GPixel/s, though this margin is negligible in practice. For users running Vulkan-native titles or modern game engines that leverage Vulkan, the RX 550X provides a meaningfully smoother experience.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is generational. The AMD Radeon RX 550X uses the Lexa chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The GTX 960M uses the GM107 chip on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node difference is significant — 14 nm versus 28 nm — and it explains the RX 550X's superior transistor density of 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter against the GTX 960M's 12.6 million. Despite this, the RX 550X has a smaller die at 103 mm² compared to the GTX 960M's 148 mm², yet packs more transistors at 2,200 million versus 1,870 million.

The memory subsystems are similar in capacity and type — both offer 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus — but the RX 550X delivers higher bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s for the GTX 960M. This 20% bandwidth advantage comes from the RX 550X's 6 Gbps effective memory speed, while the GTX 960M runs at 5 Gbps. Clock speeds are close, with the RX 550X boosting to 1183 MHz and the GTX 960M boosting to 1176 MHz, but the AMD card has a slightly higher base clock at 1100 MHz versus 1097 MHz.

The compute configuration differs notably. The GTX 960M has more shading units (640 vs 512) and more TMUs (40 vs 32), but both cards have 16 ROPs. The GTX 960M's FP32 output of 1.505 TFLOPS exceeds the RX 550X's 1,211.4 GFLOPS, and its texture rate of 47.04 GTexel/s is higher. The RX 550X counters with FP16 support at 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the GTX 960M has no listed FP16 capability. Power consumption differs substantially, with the RX 550X rated at 50 W TDP versus the GTX 960M's 75 W, making the AMD card more power-efficient per unit of performance. The RX 550X also uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x8 interface with display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0b, DisplayPort 1.4a), while the GTX 960M uses an MXM-B (3.0) module interface with display output dependent on the portable device.

API support shows another generational split. The RX 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The GTX 960M lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The DirectX 12 feature level difference — 12_0 versus 11_0 — means the RX 550X supports more modern DirectX 12 features, which could matter for certain DirectX 12 titles.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X has an average benchmark score of 10481, which is 836 points higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M's 9645.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X scores 11299 in the Geekbench Vulkan test, which is 37% higher than the GTX 960M's 8245.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X has a TDP of 50 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M is rated at 75 W.

Q: Do both cards have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both offer 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, though the RX 550X has higher bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M has 640 shading units, compared to 512 on the AMD Radeon RX 550X.

Q: What are the process node differences?

A: The RX 550X is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the GTX 960M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 550X | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz | 1097 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1183 MHz | 1176 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz / 6 Gbps effective | 1253 MHz / 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 640 |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.93 GPixel/s | 18.82 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 37.86 GTexel/s | 47.04 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,211.4 GFLOPS | 1.505 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | null |

| TDP | 50 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

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

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

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2018-12-15 | 2015-03-12 |

| Successor | Vega | GeForce 10 Mobile |

The Verdict

The data presents a clear workload-based split rather than an overall winner. For Vulkan-centric use cases — modern game engines, Vulkan-native applications, or forward-looking graphics workloads — the AMD Radeon RX 550X is the superior choice by a 37% margin in the benchmark data. Its higher memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s), better transistor density (21.4M per mm²), and support for DirectX 12 feature level 12_0 make it the more future-proof option for graphics-oriented tasks. The RX 550X also achieves this performance at a lower TDP of 50 W, making it more suitable for power-constrained mobile environments.

For OpenCL compute workloads, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M holds the advantage with a 12.5% higher score. Its 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and FP32 output of 1.505 TFLOPS provide more raw compute horsepower for general-purpose GPU tasks. Users running OpenCL-accelerated applications — video processing, scientific computing, or legacy compute software — will find the GTX 960M more responsive. Its higher texture rate of 47.04 GTexel/s also benefits texture-bound workloads.

The overall average benchmark scores favor the RX 550X at 10481 versus 9645 for the GTX 960M, an 8.7% difference. Combined with the RX 550X's newer release date (2018 versus 2015), lower power consumption, and superior memory bandwidth, the AMD card appears to be the better-rounded choice for most users. The GTX 960M remains competitive for OpenCL-specific applications, but the RX 550X's decisive Vulkan victory and higher average score make it the recommended pick for users who value modern graphics API performance and energy efficiency. The GTX 960M's edge in shading units and FP32 throughput gives it a narrow but real niche in compute-heavy OpenCL workflows.