Cedar vs GeForce GTX 550 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 550 Ti and Cedar, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 550 Ti outperforms Cedar by a whopping 409% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 661 | 1118 |
Place by popularity | 69 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.69 | no data |
Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
GPU code name | GF116 | Cedar |
Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
Release date | 15 March 2011 (13 years ago) | no data |
Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 80 |
CUDA cores | 192 | no data |
Core clock speed | 900 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 292 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | no data |
Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
Texture fill rate | 28.80 | no data |
Floating-point performance | 691.2 gflops | no data |
Floating-point performance | 0.6912 gflops | no data |
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).
Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
Length | 210 mm | no data |
Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
Width | 2-slot | no data |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
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 | no data |
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | no data |
Memory bus width | 192 Bit | no data |
Memory clock speed | 4.1 GB/s | no data |
Memory bandwidth | 98.4 GB/s | no data |
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 | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI | no data |
Multi monitor support | + | no data |
HDMI | + | - |
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.4 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
CUDA | + | - |
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 | 38
+443%
| 7−8
−443%
|
Full HD | 38
+443%
| 7−8
−443%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
Hitman 3 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
Metro Exodus | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+438%
|
8−9
−438%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
Hitman 3 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
Metro Exodus | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+438%
|
8−9
−438%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
Hitman 3 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 27−30
+440%
|
5−6
−440%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 40−45
+438%
|
8−9
−438%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
Hitman 3 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
4K
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 550 Ti and Cedar compete in popular games:
- GTX 550 Ti is 443% faster in 900p
- GTX 550 Ti is 443% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 4.02 | 0.79 |
GTX 550 Ti has a 408.9% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GTX 550 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Cedar in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.