RTX A3000 Mobile vs Radeon HD 6550M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6550M with RTX A3000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX A3000 Mobile outperforms HD 6550M by an impressive 96% 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 | 1096 | 218 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.75 | 33.31 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Lexington | GA104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 26 November 2010 (15 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (5 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 | 400 | 4096 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1230 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,154 million | 17,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 157.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 10.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 20 | 128 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 128 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 4 MB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 4 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 | medium sized | large |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 264.0 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 | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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:
| 900p | 14
−95.3%
| 300−350
+95.3%
|
| Full HD | 19
−81.2%
| 101
+81.2%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−96%
| 50
+96%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−97.8%
| 45
+97.8%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−96.6%
|
85−90
+96.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−97.4%
|
77
+97.4%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−96.6%
|
85−90
+96.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−99.1%
|
110−120
+99.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−97%
|
66
+97%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−98.2%
|
111
+98.2%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−97.1%
|
140−150
+97.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−94.1%
|
110−120
+94.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−92.6%
|
120−130
+92.6%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−82%
|
190−200
+82%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−96.6%
|
85−90
+96.6%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−99.1%
|
110−120
+99.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−89.5%
|
270−280
+89.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−96.2%
|
53
+96.2%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−88%
|
142
+88%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−98.1%
|
103
+98.1%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−97.1%
|
140−150
+97.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−94.1%
|
110−120
+94.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 124 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−97.1%
|
70−75
+97.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−92.6%
|
120−130
+92.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−95.4%
|
151
+95.4%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−82%
|
190−200
+82%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−99.1%
|
110−120
+99.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−95.3%
|
43
+95.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−87.1%
|
132
+87.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−97.8%
|
93
+97.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−94.1%
|
110−120
+94.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−92.6%
|
120−130
+92.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−88.5%
|
61
+88.5%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−82%
|
190−200
+82%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−97.1%
|
140−150
+97.1%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−95.8%
|
70−75
+95.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−96.3%
|
210−220
+96.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−92.6%
|
170−180
+92.6%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−96.5%
|
220−230
+96.5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 27 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−98.6%
|
69
+98.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−96.3%
|
80−85
+96.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−96.2%
|
50−55
+96.2%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−97.4%
|
75−80
+97.4%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 24−27 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−69.4%
|
49
+69.4%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−95.6%
|
180−190
+95.6%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−98.7%
|
77
+98.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−94.4%
|
35−40
+94.4%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−94.4%
|
35−40
+94.4%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
This is how HD 6550M and RTX A3000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX A3000 Mobile is 95% faster in 900p
- RTX A3000 Mobile is 81% faster in 1080p
- RTX A3000 Mobile is 96% faster in 1440p
- RTX A3000 Mobile is 98% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX A3000 Mobile is 99% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A3000 Mobile performs better in 44 tests (75%)
- there's a draw in 15 tests (25%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.26 | 30.11 |
| Recency | 26 November 2010 | 12 April 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 70 Watt |
HD 6550M has 63% lower power consumption.
RTX A3000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 96% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 83% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 80% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A3000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6550M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6550M is a notebook graphics card while RTX A3000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
