Radeon Pro 555 vs GeForce GTX 960M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 960M with Radeon Pro 555, including specs and performance data.

GTX 960M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
8.75
+7.5%

GTX 960M outperforms Pro 555 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking485508
Place by popularity93not in top-100
Power efficiency8.427.83
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGM107Polaris 21
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date13 March 2015 (9 years ago)5 June 2017 (7 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores640768
Core clock speed1096 MHz850 MHz
Boost clock speed1176 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate47.0440.80
Floating-point processing power1.505 TFLOPS1.306 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs4048

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop sizemedium sizedlarge
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
SLI options+-

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed2500 MHz1275 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s81.6 GB/s
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync-+
GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
BatteryBoost+-
Ansel+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 960M 8.75
+7.5%
Pro 555 8.14

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 960M 3377
+7.5%
Pro 555 3140

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GTX 960M 5278
+1.8%
Pro 555 5185

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

GTX 960M 4318
+16%
Pro 555 3721

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 960M 30086
+33%
Pro 555 22624

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GTX 960M 10953
Pro 555 11176
+2%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

GTX 960M 226308
+4%
Pro 555 217690

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

GTX 960M 8421
Pro 555 16482
+95.7%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GTX 960M 1148
+6.5%
Pro 555 1078

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

GTX 960M 56
+34%
Pro 555 42

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

GTX 960M 15
Pro 555 31
+98.1%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

GTX 960M 6
Pro 555 49
+687%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

GTX 960M 2
Pro 555 14
+735%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

GTX 960M 16
Pro 555 31
+94.9%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

GTX 960M 35
+3.6%
Pro 555 33

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

GTX 960M 2
Pro 555 9
+279%

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

GTX 960M 16
Pro 555 20
+28.4%

SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase

GTX 960M 16
Pro 555 20
+28.4%

SPECviewperf 12 - Maya

This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.

GTX 960M 15
Pro 555 31
+98.1%

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

GTX 960M 16
Pro 555 31
+94.9%

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

GTX 960M 6
Pro 555 49
+687%

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

GTX 960M 2
Pro 555 14
+735%

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

GTX 960M 35
+3.6%
Pro 555 33

SPECviewperf 12 - Medical

GTX 960M 2
Pro 555 9
+279%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

900p95
+11.8%
85−90
−11.8%
Full HD34
+3%
33
−3%
1440p14
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
4K13
+30%
10
−30%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 25
+25%
20
−25%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Battlefield 5 30
−6.7%
32
+6.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Far Cry 5 28
+7.7%
26
−7.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 31
+34.8%
21−24
−34.8%
Forza Horizon 4 84
+55.6%
50−55
−55.6%
Hitman 3 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+6.4%
45−50
−6.4%
Metro Exodus 31
+29.2%
24−27
−29.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+4.3%
21−24
−4.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 48
+14.3%
42
−14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+3.5%
55−60
−3.5%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 31
+19.2%
26
−19.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Battlefield 5 23
−13%
26
+13%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Far Cry 5 24
+14.3%
21
−14.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 23
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 71
+31.5%
50−55
−31.5%
Hitman 3 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+6.4%
45−50
−6.4%
Metro Exodus 26
+8.3%
24−27
−8.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+4.3%
21−24
−4.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+7.4%
27−30
−7.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 73
+217%
21−24
−217%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+3.5%
55−60
−3.5%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 11
−81.8%
20−22
+81.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+7.7%
12−14
−7.7%
Far Cry 5 18
+20%
15
−20%
Forza Horizon 4 25
+38.9%
18
−38.9%
Hitman 3 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+6.4%
45−50
−6.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+7.4%
27−30
−7.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+0%
14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+3.5%
55−60
−3.5%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+4.3%
21−24
−4.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14
−14.3%
16−18
+14.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 15
+25%
12−14
−25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8
+0%
8−9
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Forza Horizon 4 45
+40.6%
30−35
−40.6%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Metro Exodus 15
+50%
10−11
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+7.7%
50−55
−7.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 7
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%
Metro Exodus 8
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+100%
5−6
−100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%

This is how GTX 960M and Pro 555 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 960M is 12% faster in 900p
  • GTX 960M is 3% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 960M is 17% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 960M is 30% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 960M is 217% faster.
  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 555 is 82% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 960M is ahead in 55 tests (76%)
  • Pro 555 is ahead in 5 tests (7%)
  • there's a draw in 12 tests (17%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.75 8.14
Recency 13 March 2015 5 June 2017
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm

GTX 960M has a 7.5% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Pro 555, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 960M and Radeon Pro 555.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 960M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro 555 is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
GeForce GTX 960M
AMD Radeon Pro 555
Radeon Pro 555

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 1029 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 960M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 86 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 555 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.