Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) vs GeForce GTX 550 Ti

Place in the ranking	691	835
Place by popularity	73	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.69	no data
Power efficiency	2.40	3.74
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)
GPU code name	GF116	Bristol Ridge
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	15 March 2011 (13 years ago)	1 June 2016 (8 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 cores	192	384
Core clock speed	900 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	800 MHz
Number of transistors	1,170 million	3100 Million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	116 Watt	12-45 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	100 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	28.80	no data
Floating-point processing power	0.6912 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	24	no data
TMUs	32	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).

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
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	64/128 Bit
Memory clock speed	4.1 GB/s	no data
Memory bandwidth	98.4 GB/s	no data
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 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 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (FL 12_0)
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.2	no data
OpenCL	1.1	no data
Vulkan	N/A	-
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 4.02
+65.4%

R5 (Bristol Ridge) 2.43

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
+32.1%

R5 (Bristol Ridge) 1720

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 +81%	21−24 −81%
Full HD	38 +245%	11 −245%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

3.92

no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

7−8
+40%

5−6

−40%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Battlefield 5	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +100%	4 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +118%	10−12 −118%
Hitman 3	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +35%	20−22 −35%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +42.9%	7 −42.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +36.4%	10−12 −36.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +16.2%	35−40 −16.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Battlefield 5	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +118%	10−12 −118%
Hitman 3	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +35%	20−22 −35%
Metro Exodus	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +36.4%	10−12 −36.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +23.1%	13 −23.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +16.2%	35−40 −16.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +100%	4−5 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +118%	10−12 −118%
Hitman 3	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +35%	20−22 −35%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14−16 +36.4%	10−12 −36.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +23.1%	12−14 −23.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +16.2%	35−40 −16.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11
+66.7%

6−7

−66.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +75%	4−5 −75%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Hitman 3	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	9−10 +28.6%	7−8 −28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 +78.6%	14−16 −78.6%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+60%

5−6

−60%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	0−1	0−1
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+66.7%

3−4

−66.7%

This is how GTX 550 Ti and R5 (Bristol Ridge) compete in popular games:

GTX 550 Ti is 81% faster in 900p
GTX 550 Ti is 245% faster in 1080p

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

in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 550 Ti is 700% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 550 Ti is ahead in 55 tests (98%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.02	2.43
Recency	15 March 2011	1 June 2016
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	116 Watt	12 Watt

GTX 550 Ti has a 65.4% higher aggregate performance score.

R5 (Bristol Ridge), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 866.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 550 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 550 Ti is a desktop card while Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) is a notebook one.

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