Radeon RX 6550M vs GeForce GTX 780 Ti

Place in performance ranking	207	219
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.16	no data
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	RDNA 2 (2020−2022)
GPU code name	GK110	Navi 24
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	7 November 2013 (10 years ago)	5 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$699	no data
Current price	$461 (0.7x MSRP)	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	2880	1024
CUDA cores	2880	no data
Core clock speed	875 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	928 MHz	2560 MHz
Number of transistors	7,080 million	5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	80 Watt (50 - 80 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate	210 billion/sec	181.8
Floating-point performance	5,345 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 780 Ti and Radeon RX 6550M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x4
Length	10.5" (26.7 cm)	no data
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	One 8-pin and one 6-pin	None
SLI options	+	no data

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	3 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	7.0 GB/s	18000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	336 GB/s	144.0 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 Connectors	One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One HDMI, One DisplayPort	Portable Device Dependent
Multi monitor support	4 displays	no data
HDMI	+	no data
HDCP	+	no data
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Blu Ray 3D	+	no data
3D Gaming	+	no data
3D Vision	+	no data
3D Vision Live	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.4	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
CUDA	+	no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 780 Ti 24.59
+4.4%

RX 6550M 23.56

GeForce GTX 780 Ti outperforms Radeon RX 6550M by 4% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GTX 780 Ti 9516
+4.4%

RX 6550M 9116

GeForce GTX 780 Ti outperforms Radeon RX 6550M by 4% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GTX 780 Ti 15619

RX 6550M 20506
+31.3%

Radeon RX 6550M outperforms GeForce GTX 780 Ti by 31% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 780 Ti 11812

RX 6550M 14696
+24.4%

Radeon RX 6550M outperforms GeForce GTX 780 Ti by 24% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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:

Full HD	96 +33.3%	72 −33.3%
1440p	24−27 +4.3%	23 −4.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

40−45
+5.3%

35−40

−5.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +2.1%	45−50 −2.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45 +4.9%	40−45 −4.9%
Battlefield 5	80−85 +3.9%	75−80 −3.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 +4.8%	60−65 −4.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +5.3%	35−40 −5.3%
Far Cry 5	60−65 −42.2%	91 +42.2%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +4.8%	60−65 −4.8%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +3.8%	75−80 −3.8%
Hitman 3	70−75 +5.7%	70−75 −5.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +6%	50−55 −6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +5.3%	35−40 −5.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +5.9%	50−55 −5.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +4.4%	45−50 −4.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +2.1%	45−50 −2.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45 +4.9%	40−45 −4.9%
Battlefield 5	80−85 +3.9%	75−80 −3.9%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	65−70 +4.8%	60−65 −4.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +5.3%	35−40 −5.3%
Far Cry 5	60−65 −31.3%	84 +31.3%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +4.8%	60−65 −4.8%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +3.8%	75−80 −3.8%
Hitman 3	70−75 +5.7%	70−75 −5.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +6%	50−55 −6%
Metro Exodus	40−45 +5.1%	35−40 −5.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	40−45 +5.3%	35−40 −5.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +5.9%	50−55 −5.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 −48.2%	83 +48.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +4.4%	45−50 −4.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	45−50 +2.1%	45−50 −2.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45 +4.9%	40−45 −4.9%
Battlefield 5	80−85 +3.9%	75−80 −3.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +5.3%	35−40 −5.3%
Far Cry 5	60−65 −23.4%	79 +23.4%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +4.8%	60−65 −4.8%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +3.8%	75−80 −3.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +14.3%	49 −14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +4.4%	45−50 −4.4%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40 +5.6%	35−40 −5.6%
Hitman 3	40−45 +5.1%	35−40 −5.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−35 +6.5%	30−35 −6.5%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +4.3%	21−24 −4.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−35 +6.5%	30−35 −6.5%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +4%	24−27 −4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +4.3%	21−24 −4.3%
Battlefield 5	55−60 +5.8%	50−55 −5.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +5%	40−45 −5%
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50 +4.4%	45−50 −4.4%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +4.2%	45−50 −4.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +7.4%	27−30 −7.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18−20 +5.6%	18−20 −5.6%
Hitman 3	21−24 +4.5%	21−24 −4.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +6.7%	14−16 −6.7%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +6.3%	16−18 −6.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +8%	24−27 −8%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Battlefield 5	27−30 +3.6%	27−30 −3.6%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Far Cry 5	21−24 +5%	20−22 −5%
Far Cry New Dawn	24−27 +4.3%	21−24 −4.3%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +6.1%	30−35 −6.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

This is how GTX 780 Ti and RX 6550M compete in popular games:

GTX 780 Ti is 33% faster in 1080p
GTX 780 Ti is 4% faster in 1440p

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

in Cyberpunk 2077, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 780 Ti is 20% faster than the RX 6550M.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6550M is 48% faster than the GTX 780 Ti.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 780 Ti is ahead in 60 tests (88%)
RX 6550M is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
there's a draw in 4 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	24.59	23.56
Recency	7 November 2013	5 January 2023
Maximum RAM amount	3 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	250 Watt	80 Watt