ATI Radeon 9550 vs GeForce GTX 680MX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680MX with Radeon 9550, including specs and performance data.
680MX outperforms 9550 by a whopping 11300% 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 | 533 | 1543 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.78 | no data |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | R300 (2003−2008) |
| GPU code name | no data | RV350 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 October 2012 (13 years ago) | 1 October 2003 (22 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 | 1536 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3540 Million | 60 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 92.2 billion/sec | 1.000 |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 4 |
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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | no data | AGP 8x |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 64 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160 GB/s | 6.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | no data | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 9.0 (9_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 55 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 16−18 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 85−90 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+13900%
|
1−2
−13900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 26 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 85−90 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 85−90 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 90−95 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 40−45 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.12 | 0.08 |
| Recency | 23 October 2012 | 1 October 2003 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 64 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 130 nm |
GTX 680MX has a 11300% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 680MX is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 9550 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 680MX is a notebook graphics card while Radeon 9550 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
