Radeon RX 7900 XT vs HD 6550D
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6550D and Radeon RX 7900 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 7900 XT outperforms HD 6550D by a whopping 7170% 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 | 1148 | 20 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 30.77 |
| Power efficiency | 1.10 | 17.34 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | Sumo | Navi 31 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 20 June 2011 (14 years ago) | 3 November 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $899 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 400 | 5376 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1387 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2394 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 57,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 804.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 51.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 192 |
| TMUs | 20 | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
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 | 276 mm |
| Width | IGP | 2-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 | 20 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 800.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| 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 | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 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 | 6.7 |
| 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.
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:
| Full HD | 20
−895%
| 199
+895%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−13400%
| 135
+13400%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−8400%
| 85
+8400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.52 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.66 |
| 4K | no data | 10.58 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−11750%
|
237
+11750%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−10500%
|
212
+10500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−19500%
|
196
+19500%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−30100%
|
300−350
+30100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−4567%
|
280−290
+4567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1844%
|
170−180
+1844%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1253%
|
400−450
+1253%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−1063%
|
270−280
+1063%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−9400%
|
190
+9400%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1321%
|
199
+1321%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−18600%
|
187
+18600%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−30100%
|
300−350
+30100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−4567%
|
280−290
+4567%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−14500%
|
146
+14500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1844%
|
170−180
+1844%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−7950%
|
483
+7950%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1253%
|
400−450
+1253%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−8850%
|
179
+8850%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1214%
|
184
+1214%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−17200%
|
173
+17200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−4567%
|
280−290
+4567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1844%
|
170−180
+1844%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4150%
|
255
+4150%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−1253%
|
400−450
+1253%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−30100%
|
300−350
+30100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−20500%
|
206
+20500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−10220%
|
500−550
+10220%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1650%
|
170−180
+1650%
|
| Valorant | 0−1 | 450−500 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−12150%
|
240−250
+12150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 179 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−15000%
|
150−160
+15000%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−994%
|
175
+994%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−6520%
|
300−350
+6520%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4700%
|
95−100
+4700%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 307
+0%
|
307
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 288
+0%
|
288
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 244
+0%
|
244
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 268
+0%
|
268
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 223
+0%
|
223
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 159
+0%
|
159
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 135
+0%
|
135
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 156
+0%
|
156
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 153
+0%
|
153
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
This is how HD 6550D and RX 7900 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 7900 XT is 895% faster in 1080p
- RX 7900 XT is 13400% faster in 1440p
- RX 7900 XT is 8400% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 7900 XT is 30100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 7900 XT is ahead in 34 tests (59%)
- there's a draw in 24 tests (41%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.94 | 68.34 |
| Recency | 20 June 2011 | 3 November 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 300 Watt |
HD 6550D has 361.5% lower power consumption.
RX 7900 XT, on the other hand, has a 7170.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 540% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 7900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6550D 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.
