Radeon RX 6900 XT vs HD 6550D
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6550D and Radeon RX 6900 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6900 XT outperforms HD 6550D by a whopping 6590% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1108 | 25 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 29.98 |
| Power efficiency | 1.10 | 15.99 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Sumo | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 20 June 2011 (13 years ago) | 28 October 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 400 | 5120 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1825 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 720.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 23.04 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 128 |
| TMUs | 20 | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | IGP | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 512.0 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 | 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| 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 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
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.
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 | 19
−889%
| 188
+889%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−12900%
| 130
+12900%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−8000%
| 81
+8000%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.31 |
| 1440p | no data | 7.68 |
| 4K | no data | 12.33 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1400%
|
160−170
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−3925%
|
160−170
+3925%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1400%
|
160−170
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1800%
|
76
+1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−4775%
|
350−400
+4775%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−2017%
|
120−130
+2017%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1400%
|
160−170
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1500%
|
64
+1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−1210%
|
130−140
+1210%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−6725%
|
270−280
+6725%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−4775%
|
350−400
+4775%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 160−170 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1692%
|
210−220
+1692%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−1967%
|
124
+1967%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−2800%
|
170−180
+2800%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
−1063%
|
270−280
+1063%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1400%
|
160−170
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1225%
|
53
+1225%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−1210%
|
130−140
+1210%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−4775%
|
350−400
+4775%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1692%
|
210−220
+1692%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−1425%
|
60−65
+1425%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2600%
|
160−170
+2600%
|
| World of Tanks | 5−6
−9720%
|
450−500
+9720%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1100%
|
36
+1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−3100%
|
160−170
+3100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 130−140 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−3750%
|
150−160
+3750%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−5367%
|
328
+5367%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−947%
|
150−160
+947%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−940%
|
150−160
+940%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−6867%
|
200−210
+6867%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 55 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−947%
|
150−160
+947%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−8900%
|
90−95
+8900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−750%
|
17
+750%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−947%
|
150−160
+947%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 100−110 |
| Valorant | 1−2
−18400%
|
185
+18400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 126
+0%
|
126
+0%
|
| Valorant | 480
+0%
|
480
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 123
+0%
|
123
+0%
|
| Valorant | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 411
+0%
|
411
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 82
+0%
|
82
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 117
+0%
|
117
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 67
+0%
|
67
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
This is how HD 6550D and RX 6900 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 6900 XT is 889% faster in 1080p
- RX 6900 XT is 12900% faster in 1440p
- RX 6900 XT is 8000% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6900 XT is 18400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6900 XT is ahead in 35 tests (61%)
- there's a draw in 22 tests (39%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.03 | 68.91 |
| Recency | 20 June 2011 | 28 October 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 300 Watt |
HD 6550D has 361.5% lower power consumption.
RX 6900 XT, on the other hand, has a 6590.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6550D in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
