GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs GTX 480M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 480M with GeForce GTX 550 Ti, including specs and performance data.
480M outperforms 550 Ti by a small 6% 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 | 742 | 760 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 73 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.69 |
| Power efficiency | 3.03 | 2.47 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GF116 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 25 May 2010 (15 years ago) | 15 March 2011 (14 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
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 | 352 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 425 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 116 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 18.70 | 28.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5984 TFLOPS | 0.6912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 24 |
| TMUs | 44 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 704 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 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 | PCI-E 2.0 | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | 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 | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1200 MHz | 4.1 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 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 | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
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 | 33
−15.2%
| 38
+15.2%
|
| Full HD | 41
+10.8%
| 37
−10.8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.03 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+1.9%
|
50−55
−1.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+4.4%
|
65−70
−4.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+5.9%
|
30−35
−5.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+10%
|
10−11
−10%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+1.9%
|
50−55
−1.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+5.9%
|
30−35
−5.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+5.6%
|
18−20
−5.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+1.9%
|
50−55
−1.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
+3.4%
|
27−30
−3.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+3.2%
|
30−35
−3.2%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+7.7%
|
35−40
−7.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
+5.3%
|
18−20
−5.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how GTX 480M and GTX 550 Ti compete in popular games:
- GTX 550 Ti is 15% faster in 900p
- GTX 480M is 11% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 480M is 25% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 480M performs better in 37 tests (64%)
- there's a draw in 21 tests (36%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.93 | 3.71 |
| Recency | 25 May 2010 | 15 March 2011 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 116 Watt |
GTX 480M has a 5.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 16% lower power consumption.
GTX 550 Ti, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 480M and GeForce GTX 550 Ti.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 480M is a notebook 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.
