Radeon RX 6550M vs NVS 4200M

Place in the ranking	1163	221
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	2.06	21.65
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GF119	Navi 24
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Laptop
Release date	22 February 2011 (13 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	48	1024
Core clock speed	810 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2840 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	80 Watt
Texture fill rate	6.480	181.8
Floating-point processing power	0.1555 TFLOPS	5.816 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	32
TMUs	8	64
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	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	medium sized	medium sized
Interface	MXM	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	DDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.8 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 and SDK compatibility

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	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	2.1	-

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.

NVS 4200M 0.70

RX 6550M 23.50
+3257%

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.

NVS 4200M 290

RX 6550M 9683
+3239%

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.

NVS 4200M 507

RX 6550M 20506
+3945%

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	13 −423%	68 +423%
1440p	0−1	24

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −657%	53 +657%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1600%	50−55 +1600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −557%	46 +557%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1600%	50−55 +1600%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −1657%	123 +1657%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −400%	35 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1600%	50−55 +1600%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −267%	33 +267%
Fortnite	2−3 −6200%	120−130 +6200%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −1343%	101 +1343%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 −1480%	150−160 +1480%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −1000%	55−60 +1000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 −1267%	80−85 +1267%
World of Tanks	18−20 −1263%	250−260 +1263%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −314%	29 +314%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1600%	50−55 +1600%
Far Cry 5	9−10 −756%	75−80 +756%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −1157%	88 +1157%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 −1480%	150−160 +1480%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	4−5 −4275%	170−180 +4275%
World of Tanks	3−4 −5467%	160−170 +5467%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −1750%	70−75 +1750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −850%	35−40 +850%
Valorant	5−6 −1260%	65−70 +1260%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 −3750%	75−80 +3750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −2500%	24−27 +2500%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Dota 2	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%
Valorant	1−2 −3200%	30−35 +3200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Dota 2	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Dota 2	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Metro Exodus	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Fortnite	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

This is how NVS 4200M and RX 6550M compete in popular games:

RX 6550M is 423% faster in 1080p

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

in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6550M is 6200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX 6550M is ahead in 34 tests (54%)
there's a draw in 29 tests (46%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.70	23.50
Recency	22 February 2011	4 January 2023
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	80 Watt

NVS 4200M has 220% lower power consumption.

RX 6550M, on the other hand, has a 3257.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6550M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 4200M in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 4200M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX 6550M is a mobile workstation one.

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