AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between these two GPUs is starkly one-sided. The only directly comparable test in the dataset is Geekbench OpenCL, and the AMD Radeon RX 6400 dominates it completely. The RX 6400 scores 32,011 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M manages only 6,493 points. That represents a delta of -79.7% from the AMD card's perspective, meaning the GT 555M trails by roughly four-fifths of the RX 6400's score. In absolute terms, the RX 6400 delivers approximately 4.9 times the OpenCL performance of the older NVIDIA part — a gap so wide it suggests architectural generations rather than mere clock-speed differences.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the GT 555M's single score of 6,493 places it in the 37th percentile of all GPUs tracked by the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M at 6,481 (a 0.2% delta), the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile at 6,476 (0.3% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M at 6,513 (-0.3% delta). The GT 555M sits in a tight cluster where a few points separate competitors — the data shows a performance plateau among these mobile and entry-level parts.

The RX 6400, despite its 35th percentile ranking overall, tells a more complex story through its multiple benchmark entries. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 32,011 is its strongest showing, but its Vulkan score of 16,372 and Passmark G3D score of 7,673 reveal a GPU that performs differently across APIs. The Passmark suite offers the most granular view: DirectX 9 at 93, DirectX 10 at 54, DirectX 11 at 70, and DirectX 12 at 30. These numbers suggest the RX 6400's performance scales unevenly — it is strongest in legacy DirectX 9 workloads and weakest in modern DirectX 12 tasks, an intriguing inversion of expectations for a 2022 part.

The RX 6400's nearest rivals cluster tightly around its average score of 6,001: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M matches it exactly at 6,000 (0% delta), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server sits at 5,996 (0.1% delta), and the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5,987 (0.2% delta). This grouping is notable because the RX 6400's individual benchmark scores vary wildly — from 30 in Passmark DirectX 12 to 32,011 in Geekbench OpenCL — yet its average lands in the same neighborhood as the GT 555M's single score. The data implies that averaging across diverse test suites can obscure enormous API-specific differences.

The head-to-head table shows only one shared benchmark between these two GPUs, which limits the comparison's scope but not its clarity. In that single test, the RX 6400 wins outright. The GT 555M records zero wins across the entire dataset comparison, while the RX 6400 claims one. This is not a close contest by any available metric.

# The Verdict

From the data alone, the AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the clear performance winner. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 32,011 versus the GT 555M's 6,493 represents a 79.7% advantage — a margin so large that no other consideration in the dataset can bridge it. For any user prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL workloads, the RX 6400 is the only rational choice.

However, the verdict becomes more nuanced when considering the percentile rankings. The GT 555M sits at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, actually two points higher than the RX 6400's 35th percentile. This counterintuitive result stems from the RX 6400's uneven benchmark profile — its weak Passmark DirectX scores (30 in DX12, 54 in DX10) drag down its average, while the GT 555M's single OpenCL score is relatively consistent with its peer group. For users who care about overall standing across all tracked benchmarks, the GT 555M appears marginally better positioned, despite being decisively slower in the one test they share.

The RX 6400's multiple benchmark entries reveal a GPU that excels in some environments and struggles in others. Its Passmark G2D score of 722 suggests strong 2D desktop performance, while its Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,812 indicates moderate compute capability outside of OpenCL. The GT 555M has no comparable data points, leaving its non-OpenCL performance uncharacterized in this dataset.

Choose the RX 6400 if your workload leverages OpenCL, Vulkan, or modern API paths — it wins the only head-to-head test and offers additional Vulkan and Passmark data points showing broad capability. Choose the GT 555M only if your priority is consistency with its performance tier, as its single score aligns closely with rivals like the GTX 670M and Quadro M5000M. The data does not support choosing the GT 555M for performance reasons — it loses the only direct comparison decisively.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison in the dataset?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 32,011 against the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M's 6,493, a delta of -79.7% from the AMD card's perspective.

Q: How does each GPU rank against all other GPUs in the database?

A: The GT 555M ranks at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 6400 ranks at the 35th percentile, meaning the older NVIDIA part holds a slightly higher overall standing despite losing the head-to-head test.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each GPU based on average benchmark scores?

A: The GT 555M's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M (6,481, 0.2% delta), AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (6,476, 0.3% delta), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6,513, -0.3% delta). The RX 6400's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6,000, 0% delta), NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996, 0.1% delta), and AMD FirePro W4100 (5,987, 0.2% delta).

Q: Which GPU has more benchmark data points in the dataset?

A: The RX 6400 has ten benchmark scores covering Geekbench OpenCL, Geekbench Vulkan, and multiple Passmark tests (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute). The GT 555M has only a single Geekbench OpenCL score.

Q: What is the RX 6400's best and worst benchmark performance?

A: Its best score is 32,011 in Geekbench OpenCL, while its worst is 30 in Passmark DirectX 12. Its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 93 is its strongest DirectX result.

Q: Do the two GPUs have any benchmark tests with identical or near-identical results?

A: No. The only shared test is Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 6400 outperforms the GT 555M by 79.7%. No benchmark in the dataset shows the two GPUs achieving similar scores.

# Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across virtually every measurable specification. The GT 555M features 144 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines, while the RX 6400 contains 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs — the AMD part has 5.3 times more shading units, double the TMUs, and double the ROPs.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The GT 555M uses 1,024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, achieving 128.0 GB/s — over four times the bandwidth despite half the bus width, thanks to the faster memory technology.

Clock speeds also differ fundamentally. The GT 555M's memory runs at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective), while the RX 6400's memory runs at 2,000 MHz (16 Gbps effective). The RX 6400 additionally specifies base, boost, and game clocks at 1,923 MHz, 2,321 MHz, and 2,039 MHz respectively; the GT 555M lists no base or boost clocks in the dataset.

Fill rates and compute throughput show the generational gap clearly. The GT 555M achieves 3.540 GPixel/s pixel rate, 14.16 GTexel/s texture rate, and 339.8 GFLOPS FP32. The RX 6400 reaches 74.27 GPixel/s, 111.4 GTexel/s, and 3.565 TFLOPS FP32 — roughly 21 times the pixel rate, 8 times the texture rate, and 10.5 times the FP32 throughput.

Power and interface specifications also diverge. The GT 555M draws 35 W, while the RX 6400 draws 53 W. The NVIDIA card uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the AMD card uses PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs differ: the GT 555M is "Portable Device Dependent," while the RX 6400 offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 6400 is single-slot with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W; the GT 555M has no slot width, connector, or PSU data listed.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these GPUs spans over a decade of design evolution. The GT 555M uses NVIDIA's Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process at TSMC, packing 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die. The RX 6400 uses AMD's RDNA 2.0 architecture on a 6 nm process, also at TSMC, with 5,400 million transistors in a 107 mm² die. Transistor density tells the story: 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter for Fermi versus 50.5 million for RDNA 2.0 — a tenfold increase in packing efficiency.

The chip designs reflect their eras. The GT 555M's GF106 chip belongs to the GeForce 500M generation, released in 2011, and is now end-of-life. The RX 6400's Navi 24 chip belongs to the Radeon RX 6000 series and the Navi II generation, released in 2022, also end-of-life. The GT 555M's predecessor is GeForce 400M and its successor is GeForce 600M; the RX 6400's predecessor is Navi and successor is Navi III.

Feature support diverges in ways that matter for modern workloads. The RX 6400 includes 12 ray tracing cores — the GT 555M has none. The RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GT 555M only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 6400 adds Vulkan 1.4 support while the GT 555M lists no Vulkan capability. The RX 6400 also specifies FP16 performance at 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), a feature absent from the GT 555M's specifications.

The RX 6400's RDNA 2.0 architecture brings modern feature sets that simply did not exist in Fermi-era designs. The 12 ray tracing cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a capability entirely absent from the GT 555M. The DirectX 12 Ultimate certification indicates support for features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading, while the GT 555M's DirectX 12 (11_0) rating reflects its older feature level.

# Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 wins in every performance category where direct data exists. In Geekbench OpenCL, it outperforms the GT 555M by 79.7%. In memory bandwidth, it delivers 128.0 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. In pixel throughput, it achieves 74.27 GPixel/s versus 3.540 GPixel/s. In texture rate, 111.4 GTexel/s versus 14.16 GTexel/s. In FP32 compute, 3.565 TFLOPS versus 339.8 GFLOPS. The RX 6400 also wins on memory capacity (4 GB vs 1,024 MB), memory type (GDDR6 vs DDR3), and modern API support including Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 Ultimate.

The GT 555M's advantages are narrower but not nonexistent. It has a lower power draw at 35 W versus 53 W, making it more suitable for power-constrained portable devices — fitting given its "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs. It uses a wider 128-bit memory bus compared to the RX 6400's 64-bit bus, though this does not translate into bandwidth superiority. Its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while older, offers more lanes than the RX 6400's PCIe 4.0 x4 connection. The GT 555M also holds a slightly higher percentile ranking at 37 versus 35, suggesting marginally better consistency relative to its contemporary peers.

For users running OpenCL compute workloads, the RX 6400 is the unambiguous choice. For those needing Vulkan support, the RX 6400 is the only option with it. For ray tracing workloads, the RX 6400's 12 RT cores make it the sole candidate. For legacy DirectX 9 applications, the RX 6400's Passmark score of 93 suggests strong compatibility, though no comparable GT 555M data exists.

The GT 555M's niche would be ultra-low-power mobile systems where 35 W is the maximum allowable draw. Its 1 GB memory capacity and DDR3 type limit it to older or lighter workloads. The data does not show any performance test where the GT 555M wins — its only comparative advantage is power efficiency and its slightly higher overall percentile ranking. For every benchmark in the dataset, the RX 6400 either wins decisively or offers additional data points demonstrating broader capability.