AMD Radeon Pro 455 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon Pro 455 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon Pro 455

• Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 9 month(s) later
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 43% lower typical power consumption: 35 Watt vs 50 Watt
• 2x more memory clock speed: 5080 MHz vs 2500 MHz
• 2x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 705 vs 344
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3359 vs 3337
• Around 1% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3359 vs 3337

Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M

• Around 10% higher core clock speed: 944 MHz vs 855 MHz
• Around 79% higher texture fill rate: 73.6 GTexel / s vs 41.04 GTexel / s
• Around 33% higher pipelines: 1024 vs 768
• Around 79% better floating-point performance: 2,355 gflops vs 1,313 gflops
• Around 22% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3812 vs 3113
• Around 32% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 14492 vs 11003
• 2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 67.59 vs 33.484
• Around 26% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 720.592 vs 573.646
• Around 37% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 3.903 vs 2.854
• Around 29% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 57.947 vs 44.793
• Around 50% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 223.296 vs 148.673
• Around 39% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5783 vs 4146
• Around 46% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2566 vs 1762
• Around 39% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5783 vs 4146
• Around 46% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2566 vs 1762

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon Pro 455
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M

PassMark - G3D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	3113 3812
PassMark - G2D Mark	GPU 1 GPU 2	705 344
Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	11003 14492
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	33.484 67.59
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	573.646 720.592
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	2.854 3.903
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	44.793 57.947
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	148.673 223.296
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4146 5783
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1762 2566
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3359 3337
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	4146 5783
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1762 2566
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3359 3337

Compare specifications (specs)