Radeon Pro 5500M vs GeForce GTX 550 Ti

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 550 Ti with Radeon Pro 5500M, including specs and performance data.

GTX 550 Ti
2011
2 GB GDDR5, 116 Watt
4.03

Pro 5500M outperforms GTX 550 Ti by a whopping 336% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking693307
Place by popularity74not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.79no data
Power efficiency2.4214.41
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameGF116Navi 14
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date15 March 2011 (13 years ago)13 November 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1921536
Core clock speed900 MHz1000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1450 MHz
Number of transistors1,170 million6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)116 Watt85 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature100 °Cno data
Texture fill rate28.80139.2
Floating-point processing power0.6912 TFLOPS4.454 TFLOPS
ROPs2432
TMUs3296

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus support16x PCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length210 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB8 GB
Memory bus width192 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed4.1 GB/s1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth98.4 GB/s192.0 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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.24.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
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. 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.

GTX 550 Ti 4.03
Pro 5500M 17.56
+336%

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.

GTX 550 Ti 1553
Pro 5500M 6774
+336%

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.

GTX 550 Ti 2272
Pro 5500M 14725
+548%

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:

900p38
−321%
160−170
+321%
Full HD38
−47.4%
56
+47.4%
1440p12−14
−350%
54
+350%
4K6−7
−350%
27
+350%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.92no data
1440p12.42no data
4K24.83no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−300%
27−30
+300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
−264%
40−45
+264%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−867%
27−30
+867%
Battlefield 5 9−10
−544%
55−60
+544%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−300%
35−40
+300%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−300%
27−30
+300%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−413%
40−45
+413%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
−336%
45−50
+336%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−367%
110−120
+367%
Hitman 3 9−10
−278%
30−35
+278%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−222%
85−90
+222%
Metro Exodus 8−9
−663%
60−65
+663%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−650%
75
+650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−287%
55−60
+287%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−97.7%
85−90
+97.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
−264%
40−45
+264%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−867%
27−30
+867%
Battlefield 5 9−10
−544%
55−60
+544%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−456%
50
+456%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−300%
27−30
+300%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−413%
40−45
+413%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−12
−336%
45−50
+336%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−367%
110−120
+367%
Hitman 3 9−10
−278%
30−35
+278%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−222%
85−90
+222%
Metro Exodus 8−9
−300%
32
+300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−410%
51
+410%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−287%
55−60
+287%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−156%
40−45
+156%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−97.7%
85−90
+97.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−12
−264%
40−45
+264%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4
−867%
27−30
+867%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−289%
35
+289%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
−300%
27−30
+300%
Far Cry 5 8−9
−413%
40−45
+413%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−367%
110−120
+367%
Hitman 3 9−10
−278%
30−35
+278%
Horizon Zero Dawn 27−30
−222%
85−90
+222%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
−287%
55−60
+287%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−144%
39
+144%
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
−97.7%
85−90
+97.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−440%
54
+440%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
−386%
30−35
+386%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−350%
27−30
+350%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−350%
18−20
+350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−533%
18−20
+533%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−300%
20−22
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−1820%
95−100
+1820%
Hitman 3 8−9
−163%
21−24
+163%
Horizon Zero Dawn 9−10
−300%
35−40
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−567%
20−22
+567%
Watch Dogs: Legion 24−27
−360%
115
+360%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−338%
35
+338%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
−750%
16−18
+750%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
Hitman 3 0−1 12−14
Metro Exodus 0−1 18−20

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 3−4
Far Cry 5 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1100%
24−27
+1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−220%
16
+220%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 41
+0%
41
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
High Preset

Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

This is how GTX 550 Ti and Pro 5500M compete in popular games:

  • Pro 5500M is 321% faster in 900p
  • Pro 5500M is 47% faster in 1080p
  • Pro 5500M is 350% faster in 1440p
  • Pro 5500M is 350% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 5500M is 1820% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro 5500M is ahead in 63 tests (91%)
  • there's a draw in 6 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.03 17.56
Recency 15 March 2011 13 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 116 Watt 85 Watt

Pro 5500M has a 335.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 36.5% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 5500M 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 card while Radeon Pro 5500M is a mobile workstation one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti
GeForce GTX 550 Ti
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
Radeon Pro 5500M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

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


4.9 59451 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 550 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 259 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 5500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.