Radeon RX 6550M vs FirePro W9100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W9100 with Radeon RX 6550M, including specs and performance data.
6550M outperforms W9100 by a substantial 36% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 365 | 275 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.81 | 22.53 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | RDNA 2 (2021−2025) |
| GPU code name | Hawaii | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 26 March 2014 (12 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (3 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2816 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 930 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2440 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,200 million | 5.4 billion |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 750 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 163.7 | 156.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.238 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 176 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L1 Cache | 704 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 16 MB |
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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Length | 275 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 512 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 320 GB/s | 144.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x S-Video | Portable Device Dependent |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
| HD сomponent video output | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.4 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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:
| Full HD | 45−50 | 67
+48.9%
|
| 1440p | 16−18 | 24
+50%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Far Cry 5 | 91 | 91 |
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Valorant | 160−170 | 160−170 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260 | 250−260 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Dota 2 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Far Cry 5 | 84 | 84 |
| Far Cry 6 | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90 | 85−90 |
| Metro Exodus | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 83 | 83 |
| Valorant | 160−170 | 160−170 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Dota 2 | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Far Cry 5 | 79 | 79 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 49 | 49 |
| Valorant | 160−170 | 160−170 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 110−120 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170 | 160−170 |
| Far Cry 6 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Metro Exodus | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 190−200 | 190−200 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55 | 50−55 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40 | 35−40 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60 | 55−60 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 18−20 | 18−20 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Far Cry 6 | 12−14 | 12−14 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| Metro Exodus | 20−22 | 20−22 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Valorant | 130−140 | 130−140 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 10−11 |
| Dota 2 | 75−80 | 75−80 |
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30 | 27−30 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 40−45 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27 | 24−27 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27 | 24−27 |
This is how FirePro W9100 and RX 6550M compete in popular games:
- RX 6550M is 49% faster in 1080p
- RX 6550M is 50% faster in 1440p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.97 | 23.13 |
| Recency | 26 March 2014 | 4 January 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 750 Watt | 80 Watt |
FirePro W9100 has a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 6550M, on the other hand, has a 36% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 79% more advanced lithography process, and 89% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 6550M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W9100 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W9100 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6550M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
