NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M vs ATI Radeon HD 4550
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M and ATI Radeon HD 4550 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 NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 year(s) 5 month(s) later
- Around 83% higher core clock speed: 1096 MHz vs 600 MHz
- 9.8x more texture fill rate: 47.04 GTexel / s vs 4.8 GTexel / s
- 8x more pipelines: 640 vs 80
- 15.7x better floating-point performance: 1,505 gflops vs 96 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 55 nm
- 16x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 256 MB
- Around 91% higher memory clock speed: 2500 MHz vs 1310 MHz
- 14.3x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 3368 vs 236
- 6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 558
- 6x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3358 vs 558
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 13 March 2015 vs 30 September 2008 |
| Core clock speed | 1096 MHz vs 600 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 47.04 GTexel / s vs 4.8 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 640 vs 80 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,505 gflops vs 96 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 55 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 256 MB |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz vs 1310 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3368 vs 236 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 558 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 vs 558 |
Reasons to consider the ATI Radeon HD 4550
- 3x lower typical power consumption: 25 Watt vs 75 Watt
- Around 75% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 429 vs 245
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 25 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 429 vs 245 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M
GPU 2: ATI Radeon HD 4550
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M | ATI Radeon HD 4550 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 3368 | 236 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 245 | 429 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 11010 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 54.294 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 795.325 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.692 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 51.794 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 174.513 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5264 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3714 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 558 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5264 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3714 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3358 | 558 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1231 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M | ATI Radeon HD 4550 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | TeraScale |
| Code name | GM107 | RV710 |
| Launch date | 13 March 2015 | 30 September 2008 |
| Place in performance rating | 763 | 766 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $59 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1176 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1096 MHz | 600 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 640 | |
| Floating-point performance | 1,505 gflops | 96 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Pipelines | 640 | 80 |
| Texture fill rate | 47.04 GTexel / s | 4.8 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 75 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,870 million | 242 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | 1 | |
| HDMI | ||
| VGA аnalog display support | 1 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
| Length | 168 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB / s | 10.48 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 1310 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR2 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| Adaptive VSync | ||
| Ansel | ||
| BatteryBoost | ||
| CUDA | ||
| DSR | ||
| GameStream | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GeForce Experience | ||
| GeForce ShadowPlay | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | ||
| Optimus | ||
| SLI | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M with others
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
ATIMobility Radeon X1700
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
ATIRadeon HD 4550
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
NVIDIATesla C2070
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
AMDRadeon HD 8970 OEM
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
AMDRadeon 630
NVIDIAGeForce GTX 960M vs
IntelUHD Graphics 750
