Radeon HD 6550M vs 860M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 860M and Radeon HD 6550M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
860M outperforms HD 6550M by a whopping 809% 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 | 437 | 1059 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 58.66 | 3.72 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Krackan Point | Lexington |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | March 2025 (recently) | 26 November 2010 (14 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 | 512 | 400 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 34,000 million | 2,154 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 4 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 26 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 96.00 | 12.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.072 TFLOPS | 0.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 20 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 8 | no data |
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 | PCIe 4.0 x8 | MXM-II |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | System Shared | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 28.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 120−130
+757%
| 14
−757%
|
| Full HD | 43
+126%
| 19
−126%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+829%
|
7−8
−829%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| God of War | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+829%
|
7−8
−829%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50
+1567%
|
3−4
−1567%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+2200%
|
3−4
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+525%
|
8−9
−525%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| God of War | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+367%
|
9−10
−367%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+218%
|
30−35
−218%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+829%
|
7−8
−829%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+483%
|
27−30
−483%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+2200%
|
3−4
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+525%
|
8−9
−525%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| God of War | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+367%
|
9−10
−367%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+218%
|
30−35
−218%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+525%
|
8−9
−525%
|
| God of War | 21−24
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+367%
|
9−10
−367%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
+2200%
|
3−4
−2200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+1013%
|
8−9
−1013%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+2420%
|
5−6
−2420%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| God of War | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+53.3%
|
14−16
−53.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+800%
|
7−8
−800%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| God of War | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 860M and HD 6550M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 860M is 757% faster in 900p
- Radeon 860M is 126% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 860M is 5100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 860M performs better in 42 tests (89%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.55 | 1.27 |
| Chip lithography | 4 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 26 Watt |
Radeon 860M has a 809.4% higher aggregate performance score, a 900% more advanced lithography process, and 73.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 860M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6550M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
