Radeon RX 6550M vs GeForce 320M

Place in the ranking	1225	219
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.62	21.67
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	C89	Navi 24
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 April 2010 (14 years ago)	4 January 2023 (2 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	48	1024
Core clock speed	450 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2840 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	80 Watt
Texture fill rate	7.200	181.8
Floating-point processing power	0.0912 TFLOPS	5.816 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	32
TMUs	16	64
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	16

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	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x4
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	System Shared	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	4 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	144.0 GB/s
Shared memory	+	-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors

No outputs

Portable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.1	6.7
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	N/A	2.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.3

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 320M 0.54

RX 6550M 25.14
+4556%

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.

GeForce 320M 209

RX 6550M 9661
+4522%

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	20 −240%	68 +240%
1440p	0−1	24

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −783%	53 +783%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1600%	50−55 +1600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −667%	46 +667%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1600%	50−55 +1600%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −1950%	123 +1950%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −483%	35 +483%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1600%	50−55 +1600%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −371%	33 +371%
Fortnite	0−1	120−130
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −1583%	101 +1583%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −1875%	150−160 +1875%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −1540%	80−85 +1540%
World of Tanks	16−18 −1513%	250−260 +1513%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −383%	29 +383%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1600%	50−55 +1600%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −1000%	75−80 +1000%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −1367%	88 +1367%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −1875%	150−160 +1875%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −5733%	170−180 +5733%
World of Tanks	1−2 −16500%	160−170 +16500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +82.4%	17 −82.4%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −1725%	70−75 +1725%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −825%	35−40 +825%
Valorant	5−6 −1260%	65−70 +1260%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 −7600%	75−80 +7600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	24−27
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Dota 2	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%
Valorant	1−2 −3200%	30−35 +3200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Dota 2	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Dota 2	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Fortnite	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

This is how GeForce 320M and RX 6550M compete in popular games:

RX 6550M is 240% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Counter-Strike 2, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce 320M is 82% faster.
in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6550M is 16500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce 320M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
RX 6550M is ahead in 32 tests (52%)
there's a draw in 29 tests (47%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.54	25.14
Recency	1 April 2010	4 January 2023
Chip lithography	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	80 Watt

GeForce 320M has 247.8% lower power consumption.

RX 6550M, on the other hand, has a 4555.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6550M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.