Radeon RX 7900M vs GeForce GTX 550 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 550 Ti with Radeon RX 7900M, including specs and performance data.
7900M outperforms 550 Ti by a whopping 1321% 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 | 768 | 64 |
| Place by popularity | 83 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.69 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.47 | 22.62 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | GF116 | Navi 31 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 March 2011 (15 years ago) | 19 October 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 1825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2090 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 57,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 601.9 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 38.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 192 |
| TMUs | 32 | 288 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 2.3 MB |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 384 KB | 6 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 64 MB |
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 4.0 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 | 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 | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4.1 GB/s | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 98.4 GB/s | 576.0 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 | Portable Device Dependent |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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
−1216%
| 500−550
+1216%
|
| Full HD | 37
−300%
| 148
+300%
|
| 1440p | 7−8
−1429%
| 107
+1429%
|
| 4K | 5−6
−1360%
| 73
+1360%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.03 | no data |
| 1440p | 21.29 | no data |
| 4K | 29.80 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−1864%
|
270−280
+1864%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 5−6
−3020%
|
150−160
+3020%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−1029%
|
150−160
+1029%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−1864%
|
270−280
+1864%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−1400%
|
160−170
+1400%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−1019%
|
230−240
+1019%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−1044%
|
200−210
+1044%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−1540%
|
160−170
+1540%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−988%
|
170−180
+988%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−463%
|
290−300
+463%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−1029%
|
150−160
+1029%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−1864%
|
270−280
+1864%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
−310%
|
270−280
+310%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−1224%
|
450−500
+1224%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−1400%
|
160−170
+1400%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−1019%
|
230−240
+1019%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−1044%
|
200−210
+1044%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−1540%
|
160−170
+1540%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
−1164%
|
139
+1164%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−1800%
|
130−140
+1800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−988%
|
170−180
+988%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−1845%
|
210−220
+1845%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−463%
|
290−300
+463%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−1029%
|
150−160
+1029%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−1588%
|
135
+1588%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−1224%
|
450−500
+1224%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−1064%
|
128
+1064%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−1044%
|
200−210
+1044%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−988%
|
170−180
+988%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−1427%
|
168
+1427%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−463%
|
290−300
+463%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−1019%
|
230−240
+1019%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−1800%
|
150−160
+1800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−1293%
|
350−400
+1293%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−10500%
|
106
+10500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−4100%
|
80−85
+4100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−465%
|
170−180
+465%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−776%
|
300−350
+776%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−4550%
|
93
+4550%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1657%
|
123
+1657%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−1767%
|
160−170
+1767%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2220%
|
110−120
+2220%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−2029%
|
140−150
+2029%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−873%
|
146
+873%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−1600%
|
300−350
+1600%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−4300%
|
44
+4300%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−1317%
|
170−180
+1317%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−5050%
|
103
+5050%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2875%
|
110−120
+2875%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−2200%
|
90−95
+2200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−1850%
|
75−80
+1850%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 116
+0%
|
116
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
This is how GTX 550 Ti and RX 7900M compete in popular games:
- RX 7900M is 1216% faster in 900p
- RX 7900M is 300% faster in 1080p
- RX 7900M is 1429% faster in 1440p
- RX 7900M is 1360% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 7900M is 10500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 7900M performs better in 51 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.72 | 52.87 |
| Recency | 15 March 2011 | 19 October 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 180 Watt |
GTX 550 Ti has 55% lower power consumption.
RX 7900M, on the other hand, has a 1321% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 7900M 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 RX 7900M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
