Radeon RX 6550M vs GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile

Place in the ranking	236	217
Place by popularity	38	not in top-100
Power efficiency	21.82	21.62
Architecture	Ampere (2020−2024)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GA107	Navi 24
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	11 May 2021 (3 years ago)	4 January 2023 (2 years ago)

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	2048	1024
Core clock speed	712 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	1057 MHz	2840 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	8 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	80 Watt
Texture fill rate	67.65	181.8
Floating-point processing power	4.329 TFLOPS	5.816 TFLOPS
ROPs	40	32
TMUs	64	64
Tensor Cores	64	no data
Ray Tracing Cores	16	16

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	large	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x4
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	GDDR6	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 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

No outputs

Portable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.6	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	3.0	2.2
Vulkan	1.2	1.3
CUDA	8.6	-

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.

RTX 3050 Mobile 23.72

RX 6550M 25.07
+5.7%

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.

RTX 3050 Mobile 9122

RX 6550M 9638
+5.7%

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.

RTX 3050 Mobile 21358
+4.2%

RX 6550M 20506

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.

RTX 3050 Mobile 15685
+6.7%

RX 6550M 14696

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	93 +36.8%	68 −36.8%
1440p	52 +117%	24 −117%
4K	33 +10%	30−35 −10%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	40−45 −20.5%	53 +20.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	106 +108%	50−55 −108%
Elden Ring	95 +15.9%	80−85 −15.9%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 −5.5%	75−80 +5.5%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 −2.3%	45 +2.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	73 +43.1%	50−55 −43.1%
Forza Horizon 4	156 +26.8%	123 −26.8%
Metro Exodus	110 +66.7%	65−70 −66.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 −5.8%	55−60 +5.8%
Valorant	95−100 −6.3%	100−110 +6.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 −5.5%	75−80 +5.5%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +25.7%	35 −25.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	56 +9.8%	50−55 −9.8%
Dota 2	142 +65.1%	85−90 −65.1%
Elden Ring	123 +50%	80−85 −50%
Far Cry 5	130 +294%	33 −294%
Fortnite	120−130 −3.3%	120−130 +3.3%
Forza Horizon 4	123 +21.8%	101 −21.8%
Grand Theft Auto V	128 +48.8%	85−90 −48.8%
Metro Exodus	74 +12.1%	65−70 −12.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 −3.3%	150−160 +3.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	50−55 −5.8%	55−60 +5.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	75−80 −6.6%	80−85 +6.6%
Valorant	95−100 −6.3%	100−110 +6.3%
World of Tanks	250−260 −2.4%	250−260 +2.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 −5.5%	75−80 +5.5%
Counter-Strike 2	40−45 +51.7%	29 −51.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	51 +0%	50−55 +0%
Dota 2	155 +80.2%	85−90 −80.2%
Far Cry 5	70−75 −4.1%	75−80 +4.1%
Forza Horizon 4	106 +20.5%	88 −20.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	150−160 −3.3%	150−160 +3.3%
Valorant	95−100 −6.3%	100−110 +6.3%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	57 +35.7%	40−45 −35.7%
Elden Ring	66 +50%	40−45 −50%
Grand Theft Auto V	57 +35.7%	40−45 −35.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 −0.6%	170−180 +0.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −4.5%	21−24 +4.5%
World of Tanks	150−160 −5.1%	160−170 +5.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −4.2%	50−55 +4.2%
Counter-Strike 2	20−22 −5%	21−24 +5%
Cyberpunk 2077	28 +33.3%	21−24 −33.3%
Far Cry 5	65−70 −7.4%	70−75 +7.4%
Forza Horizon 4	78 +16.4%	65−70 −16.4%
Metro Exodus	69 +21.1%	55−60 −21.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 −8.8%	35−40 +8.8%
Valorant	60−65 −7.9%	65−70 +7.9%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −9.5%	21−24 +9.5%
Dota 2	57 +29.5%	40−45 −29.5%
Elden Ring	33 +65%	20−22 −65%
Grand Theft Auto V	57 +29.5%	40−45 −29.5%
Metro Exodus	23 +21.1%	18−20 −21.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 −5.6%	75−80 +5.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	57 +32.6%	40−45 −32.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 −8.3%	24−27 +8.3%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 −9.5%	21−24 +9.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	12 +50%	8−9 −50%
Dota 2	93 +111%	40−45 −111%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −6.5%	30−35 +6.5%
Fortnite	27−30 −6.9%	30−35 +6.9%
Forza Horizon 4	45 +18.4%	35−40 −18.4%
Valorant	30−33 −10%	30−35 +10%

This is how RTX 3050 Mobile and RX 6550M compete in popular games:

RTX 3050 Mobile is 37% faster in 1080p
RTX 3050 Mobile is 117% faster in 1440p
RTX 3050 Mobile is 10% faster in 4K

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

in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3050 Mobile is 294% faster.
in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 6550M is 20% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RTX 3050 Mobile is ahead in 30 tests (48%)
RX 6550M is ahead in 32 tests (51%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	23.72	25.07
Recency	11 May 2021	4 January 2023
Chip lithography	8 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	80 Watt

RTX 3050 Mobile has 6.7% lower power consumption.

RX 6550M, on the other hand, has a 5.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 33.3% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile and Radeon RX 6550M.

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