Arc A550M vs ATI Radeon X1600 PRO

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
X1300 XT X1300 XT AGP X1600 PRO X1600 PRO AGP X1600 XT X1600 XT Dual X1650 AGP X1650 GTO X1650 PRO
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
A350M A370M A380M A530M A550M A570M A730M A770M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon X1600 PRO with Arc A550M, including specs and performance data.

ATI X1600 PRO
2007, $199
256 MB GDDR3, 41 Watt
0.24

A550M outperforms X1600 PRO by a whopping 9363% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
ATI X1600 PRO X1600 PRO
Arc A550M Arc A550M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1454283
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.4529.30
ArchitectureR500 (2005−2007)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameRV530DG2-512
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date1 October 2007 (18 years ago)2022 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$199 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 coresno data2048
Core clock speed500 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2050 MHz
Number of transistors157 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)41 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate2.000262.4
Floating-point processing powerno data8.397 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs4128
Tensor Coresno data256
Ray Tracing Coresno data16
L1 Cacheno data3 MB
L2 Cacheno data8 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 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed390 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.48 GB/s224.0 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 VGA, 1x S-VideoPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK support

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model3.06.6
OpenGL2.04.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3
DLSS-+

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Dota 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Dota 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
High

Atomic Heart 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.24 22.71
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 41 Watt 60 Watt

ATI X1600 PRO has 46% lower power consumption.

Arc A550M, on the other hand, has a 9363% higher aggregate performance score, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1400% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A550M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1600 PRO in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon X1600 PRO is a desktop graphics card while Arc A550M 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.

ATI X1600 PRO Radeon X1600 PRO
vs
ATI X800 XT Radeon X800 XT
Arc A550M Arc A550M
vs
RTX 3050 6GB Mobile GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile
ATI X1600 PRO Radeon X1600 PRO
vs
6800 LE GeForce 6800 LE
ATI HD 3870 HD 3870
vs
Iris Xe Graphics G4 Iris Xe Graphics G4
ATI HD 3870 HD 3870
vs
RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation RTX 2000 Max-Q Ada Generation
ATI HD 3870 HD 3870
vs
Radeon 820M 820M
ATI X800 GTO AGP X800 GTO AGP
vs
ATI X1550 X1550
ATI X1600 PRO X1600 PRO
vs
7050 SE + nForce 630a 7050 SE + nForce 630a
ATI X1600 PRO AGP X1600 PRO AGP
vs
ATI 9250 9250
ATI X1600 PRO AGP X1600 PRO AGP
vs
RTX 2050 Max-Q RTX 2050 Max-Q
ATI X1600 XT X1600 XT
vs
ATI HD 2600 PRO AGP HD 2600 PRO AGP
ATI X1600 XT X1600 XT
vs
8400 GS PCI Rev. 2 8400 GS PCI Rev. 2
ATI HD 4670 AGP HD 4670 AGP
vs
HD 6450 HD 6450

Community ratings

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

3.1 133 votes

Rate Radeon X1600 PRO on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 104 votes

Rate Arc A550M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon X1600 PRO or Arc A550M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.