Arc A770 vs Radeon RX 550

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 550 and Arc A770, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX 550
2017, $79
4 GB GDDR5, 50 Watt
6.46

A770 outperforms RX 550 by a whopping 395% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking634199
Place by popularity44not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.9247.13
Power efficiency10.0611.06
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameLexaDG2-512
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date20 April 2017 (9 years ago)12 October 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$79 $329

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

Arc A770 has 1514% better value for money than RX 550.

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 cores5124096
Core clock speed1100 MHz2100 MHz
Boost clock speed1183 MHz2400 MHz
Number of transistors2,200 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate37.86614.4
Floating-point processing power1.211 TFLOPS19.66 TFLOPS
ROPs16128
TMUs32256
Tensor Coresno data512
Ray Tracing Coresno data32
L1 Cache128 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KB16 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x16
Length145 mmno data
Width2-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth112.0 GB/s512.0 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI++

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
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.

RX 550 6.46
Arc A770 31.95
+395%

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.

RX 550 2702
Samples: 1457
Arc A770 13367
+395%
Samples: 1832

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 HD18−21
−82.4%
102
1440p10−1259
+490%
4K7−8
−81.1%
37

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.393.23
+26.5%
1440p7.905.58
+29.4%
4K11.298.89
+21.2%
  • Arc A770 has 27% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • Arc A770 has 29% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • Arc A770 has 21% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 179 179
Counter-Strike 2 317 317
Cyberpunk 2077 78 78

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 132 132
Battlefield 5 110−120 110−120
Counter-Strike 2 270 270
Cyberpunk 2077 70 70
Far Cry 5 117 117
Fortnite 140−150 140−150
Forza Horizon 4 33 33
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
Valorant 200−210 200−210

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 99 99
Battlefield 5 110−120 110−120
Counter-Strike 2 143 143
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 61 61
Far Cry 5 109 109
Far Cry 6 117 117
Fortnite 140−150 140−150
Forza Horizon 4 31 31
Grand Theft Auto V 105 105
Metro Exodus 113 113
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 196 196
Valorant 200−210 200−210

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120 110−120
Cyberpunk 2077 58 58
Far Cry 5 104 104
Forza Horizon 4 23 23
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140 130−140
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 72 72
Valorant 200−210 200−210

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 140−150 140−150

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 90 90
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230 220−230
Far Cry 6 79 79
Grand Theft Auto V 45 45
Metro Exodus 71 71
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 230−240 230−240

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90 85−90
Cyberpunk 2077 45 45
Far Cry 5 82 82
Forza Horizon 4 15 15
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60 60

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 80−85 80−85

4K
High

Atomic Heart 24−27 24−27
Counter-Strike 2 28 28
Far Cry 6 49 49
Grand Theft Auto V 48 48
Metro Exodus 47 47
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 73 73
Valorant 190−200 190−200

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55 50−55
Counter-Strike 2 35−40 35−40
Cyberpunk 2077 26 26
Far Cry 5 49 49
Forza Horizon 4 8 8
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 40−45

4K
Epic

Fortnite 40−45 40−45

This is how RX 550 and Arc A770 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A770 is 467% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A770 is 490% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A770 is 429% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.46 31.95
Recency 20 April 2017 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 225 Watt

RX 550 has 78% lower power consumption.

Arc A770, on the other hand, has a 395% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 57% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 550 in performance tests.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 8388 votes

Rate Radeon RX 550 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 5532 votes

Rate Arc A770 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 550 or Arc A770, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.