Quadro FX 2500M vs Radeon HD 6550D

Place in performance ranking	1062	1172
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.18	no data
Architecture	Terascale 2 (2009−2015)	G7x (2005−2007)
GPU code name	Llano	G71glm
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	30 June 2011 (12 years ago)	29 September 2005 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$99.99
Current price	$49	$126 (1.3x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

HD 6550D and FX 2500M have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	400	32
Core clock speed	600 MHz	8 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	500 MHz
Number of transistors	1000 Million	278 million
Manufacturing process technology	32 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.00	12.00

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon HD 6550D and Quadro FX 2500M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop size	no data	large
Interface	IGP	MXM-III
Width	IGP	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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	512 MB
Memory bus width	System Shared	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1200 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	38.4 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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.2 (11_0)	9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model	5.0	3.0
OpenGL	4.4	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	N/A
Vulkan	N/A	N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

HD 6550D 1.03
+83.9%

FX 2500M 0.56

Radeon HD 6550D outperforms Quadro FX 2500M by 84% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

HD 6550D 400
+84.3%

FX 2500M 217

Radeon HD 6550D outperforms Quadro FX 2500M by 84% in Passmark.

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

20
+100%

10−12

−100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	0−1
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	7−8 +16.7%	6−7 −16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Hitman 3	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

This is how HD 6550D and FX 2500M compete in popular games:

HD 6550D is 100% faster in 1080p

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

in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 6550D is 100% faster than the FX 2500M.

All in all, in popular games:

HD 6550D is ahead in 11 tests (44%)
there's a draw in 14 tests (56%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.03	0.56
Recency	30 June 2011	29 September 2005
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	512 MB
Chip lithography	32 nm	90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	45 Watt