GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs Radeon Pro 555
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 555 with GeForce GTX 550 Ti, including specs and performance data.
Pro 555 outperforms 550 Ti by an impressive 50% 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 | 591 | 780 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.71 |
| Power efficiency | 7.79 | 2.50 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | GF116 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 June 2017 (9 years ago) | 15 March 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 | 768 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 116 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 40.80 | 28.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.306 TFLOPS | 0.6912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 24 |
| TMUs | 48 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 384 KB |
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 | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1275 MHz | 4.1 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.6 GB/s | 98.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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 | 75−80
+49.3%
| 38
−49.3%
|
| Full HD | 32
−13.5%
| 37
+13.5%
|
| 4K | 13
+53.8%
| 6−7
−53.8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.03 |
| 4K | no data | 24.83 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+50%
|
9−10
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+61.5%
|
14−16
−61.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+53.3%
|
7−8
−53.3%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 14−16
+64.3%
|
5−6
−64.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+50%
|
9−10
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+57.6%
|
14−16
−57.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+61.5%
|
14−16
−61.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+53.3%
|
7−8
−53.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+57.7%
|
10−12
−57.7%
|
| Fortnite | 82
+73.2%
|
21−24
−73.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 31
+41.9%
|
18−20
−41.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24
+33.3%
|
16−18
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+32.1%
|
50−55
−32.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+50%
|
9−10
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+57.6%
|
14−16
−57.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+61.5%
|
14−16
−61.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+43.8%
|
65−70
−43.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+53.3%
|
7−8
−53.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+41.4%
|
30−35
−41.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+54.2%
|
10−12
−54.2%
|
| Fortnite | 29
+24.1%
|
21−24
−24.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+30.8%
|
18−20
−30.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+62.1%
|
10−12
−62.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+53.3%
|
7−8
−53.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21
+23.8%
|
16−18
−23.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 23
+47.8%
|
12−14
−47.8%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+32.1%
|
50−55
−32.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+57.6%
|
14−16
−57.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+53.3%
|
7−8
−53.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 57
+40.4%
|
30−35
−40.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 22
+50%
|
10−12
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
−18.8%
|
16−18
+18.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+14.3%
|
12−14
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+32.1%
|
50−55
−32.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 23
+4.3%
|
21−24
−4.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+50%
|
7−8
−50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+50%
|
27−30
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+77.8%
|
2−3
−77.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+71.4%
|
2−3
−71.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+26.2%
|
30−35
−26.2%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+51.3%
|
35−40
−51.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+56.3%
|
7−8
−56.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+66.7%
|
2−3
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+60%
|
6−7
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+50%
|
9−10
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+50%
|
5−6
−50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+53.3%
|
7−8
−53.3%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+66.7%
|
2−3
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+100%
|
0−1
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+11.1%
|
16−18
−11.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+66.7%
|
1−2
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+57.1%
|
3−4
−57.1%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+48.5%
|
16−18
−48.5%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+62.5%
|
3−4
−62.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+100%
|
0−1
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+57.1%
|
12−14
−57.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+71.4%
|
2−3
−71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+66.7%
|
4−5
−66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+42.9%
|
4−5
−42.9%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+42.9%
|
4−5
−42.9%
|
This is how Pro 555 and GTX 550 Ti compete in popular games:
- Pro 555 is 49% faster in 900p
- GTX 550 Ti is 14% faster in 1080p
- Pro 555 is 54% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 555 is 78% faster.
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 550 Ti is 19% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro 555 performs better in 53 tests (96%)
- GTX 550 Ti performs better in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.54 | 3.74 |
| Recency | 5 June 2017 | 15 March 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 116 Watt |
Pro 555 has a 50% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 65% more advanced lithography process, and 35% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro 555 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 550 Ti in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 555 is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 550 Ti 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.
