Radeon RX 6550M vs HD 6290
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6290 with Radeon RX 6550M, including specs and performance data.
RX 6550M outperforms HD 6290 by a whopping 9285% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1360 | 223 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.97 | 21.72 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Cedar | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 December 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 | 80 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 400 MHz | 2840 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.200 | 181.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.104 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| 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 | GDDR3 | 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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.
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.
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 | 6
−1017%
| 67
+1017%
|
| 1440p | -0−1 | 26 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−6400%
|
65−70
+6400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−657%
|
53
+657%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−5000%
|
50−55
+5000%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−6400%
|
65−70
+6400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−543%
|
45
+543%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−5000%
|
50−55
+5000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3067%
|
95−100
+3067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1214%
|
90−95
+1214%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−531%
|
160−170
+531%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−6400%
|
65−70
+6400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−400%
|
35
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−2025%
|
250−260
+2025%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−5000%
|
50−55
+5000%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−1244%
|
120−130
+1244%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3067%
|
95−100
+3067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1214%
|
90−95
+1214%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1975%
|
83
+1975%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−531%
|
160−170
+531%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−314%
|
29
+314%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−5000%
|
50−55
+5000%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−1244%
|
120−130
+1244%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−3067%
|
95−100
+3067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1214%
|
90−95
+1214%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−1125%
|
49
+1125%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−531%
|
160−170
+531%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−17400%
|
170−180
+17400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 21−24 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−6000%
|
60−65
+6000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 55−60 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−193%
|
40−45
+193%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−6800%
|
130−140
+6800%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1200%
|
24−27
+1200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how HD 6290 and RX 6550M compete in popular games:
- RX 6550M is 1017% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6550M is 17400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6550M is ahead in 33 tests (51%)
- there's a draw in 32 tests (49%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.27 | 25.34 |
| Recency | 4 December 2011 | 4 January 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 80 Watt |
HD 6290 has 321.1% lower power consumption.
RX 6550M, on the other hand, has a 9285.2% 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 Radeon HD 6290 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6290 is a desktop card while Radeon RX 6550M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
