Radeon Pro 5300M vs GeForce GTX 550 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 550 Ti with Radeon Pro 5300M, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5300M outperforms GTX 550 Ti by a whopping 279% 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 | 389 |
| Place by popularity | 86 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.68 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.44 | 12.64 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF116 | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 15 March 2011 (14 years ago) | 13 November 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 192 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 100.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 3.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 80 |
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 |
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 210 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4.1 GB/s | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 98.4 GB/s | 192.0 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 Connectors | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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.
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
−268%
| 140−150
+268%
|
| Full HD | 37
−278%
| 140−150
+278%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.03 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−433%
|
80−85
+433%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| God of War | 9−10
−222%
|
27−30
+222%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−313%
|
60−65
+313%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−433%
|
80−85
+433%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−327%
|
45−50
+327%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−286%
|
80−85
+286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−233%
|
60−65
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| God of War | 9−10
−222%
|
27−30
+222%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−231%
|
50−55
+231%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−131%
|
120−130
+131%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−313%
|
60−65
+313%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−433%
|
80−85
+433%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−185%
|
190−200
+185%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−168%
|
90−95
+168%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−327%
|
45−50
+327%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−286%
|
80−85
+286%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−233%
|
60−65
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| God of War | 9−10
−222%
|
27−30
+222%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−350%
|
50−55
+350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−231%
|
50−55
+231%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−245%
|
35−40
+245%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−131%
|
120−130
+131%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−313%
|
60−65
+313%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−329%
|
30−33
+329%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−168%
|
90−95
+168%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−327%
|
45−50
+327%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−233%
|
60−65
+233%
|
| God of War | 9−10
−222%
|
27−30
+222%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−231%
|
50−55
+231%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−245%
|
35−40
+245%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−131%
|
120−130
+131%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
−286%
|
80−85
+286%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−300%
|
27−30
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−269%
|
100−110
+269%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−667%
|
21−24
+667%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−800%
|
18−20
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−339%
|
130−140
+339%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−277%
|
140−150
+277%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−417%
|
30−35
+417%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−289%
|
35−40
+289%
|
| God of War | 3−4
−433%
|
16−18
+433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−425%
|
21−24
+425%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−357%
|
30−35
+357%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−68.8%
|
27−30
+68.8%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−316%
|
75−80
+316%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−325%
|
50−55
+325%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−525%
|
24−27
+525%
|
| God of War | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
This is how GTX 550 Ti and Pro 5300M compete in popular games:
- Pro 5300M is 268% faster in 900p
- Pro 5300M is 278% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5300M is 800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro 5300M performs better in 58 tests (91%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.72 | 14.10 |
| Recency | 15 March 2011 | 13 November 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 85 Watt |
Pro 5300M has a 279% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 36.5% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro 5300M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 550 Ti in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 550 Ti is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro 5300M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
