Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs GeForce GTX 550 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 550 Ti with Radeon Pro Vega 16, including specs and performance data.
Pro Vega 16 outperforms GTX 550 Ti by a whopping 209% 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 | 711 | 412 |
| Place by popularity | 60 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.69 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.38 | 11.39 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF116 | Vega 12 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 15 March 2011 (14 years ago) | 14 November 2018 (6 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.
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 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 815 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1190 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 76.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 2.437 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 64 |
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 | large |
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 1024 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4.1 GB/s | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 98.4 GB/s | 307.2 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 | 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 | 6.3 |
| 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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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
−189%
| 110−120
+189%
|
| Full HD | 37
−59.5%
| 59
+59.5%
|
| 4K | 12−14
−217%
| 38
+217%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.03 | no data |
| 4K | 12.42 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−357%
|
60−65
+357%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−267%
|
21−24
+267%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−264%
|
50−55
+264%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−357%
|
60−65
+357%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−333%
|
35−40
+333%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−224%
|
65−70
+224%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−178%
|
50−55
+178%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−350%
|
35−40
+350%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−267%
|
21−24
+267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−163%
|
40−45
+163%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−100%
|
100−110
+100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−264%
|
50−55
+264%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−357%
|
60−65
+357%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−147%
|
160−170
+147%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−121%
|
75
+121%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−333%
|
35−40
+333%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−224%
|
65−70
+224%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−178%
|
50−55
+178%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−350%
|
35−40
+350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−267%
|
21−24
+267%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−163%
|
40−45
+163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−182%
|
30−35
+182%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−100%
|
100−110
+100%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−264%
|
50−55
+264%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−112%
|
72
+112%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
−333%
|
35−40
+333%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−178%
|
50−55
+178%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−267%
|
21−24
+267%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−163%
|
40−45
+163%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−145%
|
27
+145%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−100%
|
100−110
+100%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
−224%
|
65−70
+224%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−340%
|
21−24
+340%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−214%
|
85−90
+214%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
−500%
|
18−20
+500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−180%
|
80−85
+180%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−215%
|
120−130
+215%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−257%
|
24−27
+257%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−211%
|
27−30
+211%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−257%
|
24−27
+257%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−43.8%
|
21−24
+43.8%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−232%
|
60−65
+232%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−217%
|
38
+217%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−200%
|
12−14
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−400%
|
20−22
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
This is how GTX 550 Ti and Pro Vega 16 compete in popular games:
- Pro Vega 16 is 189% faster in 900p
- Pro Vega 16 is 59% faster in 1080p
- Pro Vega 16 is 217% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro Vega 16 is 600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro Vega 16 is ahead in 58 tests (88%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (12%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.48 | 10.76 |
| Recency | 15 March 2011 | 14 November 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 75 Watt |
Pro Vega 16 has a 209.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 54.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro Vega 16 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 Vega 16 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.
