RTX 2000 Ada Generation vs Radeon 550
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 550 with RTX 2000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation outperforms 550 by a whopping 720% 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 | 637 | 92 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.37 | 94.17 |
| Power efficiency | 7.50 | 43.94 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Lexa | AD107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 20 April 2017 (8 years ago) | 12 February 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | $649 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation has 2055% better value for money than Radeon 550.
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 | 512 | 2816 |
| Core clock speed | 1100 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1183 MHz | 2130 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 18,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 37.86 | 187.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.211 TFLOPS | 12 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 |
| TMUs | 32 | 88 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 88 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 22 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 145 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 56 GB/s | 256.0 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.03 | 41.24 |
| Recency | 20 April 2017 | 12 February 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 70 Watt |
Radeon 550 has 40% lower power consumption.
RTX 2000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 719.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 2000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 550 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 550 is a desktop card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
