FirePro R5000 vs Radeon HD 6550M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6550M with FirePro R5000, including specs and performance data.
R5000 outperforms HD 6550M by a whopping 403% 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 | 1062 | 608 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.26 |
| Power efficiency | 3.68 | 3.21 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Lexington | Pitcairn |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 26 November 2010 (14 years ago) | 25 February 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,099 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 825 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,154 million | 2,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 350 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 39.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 1.267 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 20 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB |
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 | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 279 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-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 | DDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 102.4 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 | No outputs | 2x mini-DisplayPort |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
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 | 14
−400%
| 70−75
+400%
|
| Full HD | 19
−400%
| 95−100
+400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 11.57 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−400%
|
170−180
+400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−383%
|
140−150
+383%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−400%
|
85−90
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−400%
|
170−180
+400%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−400%
|
85−90
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−400%
|
45−50
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−400%
|
170−180
+400%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−400%
|
60−65
+400%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−400%
|
75−80
+400%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
This is how HD 6550M and FirePro R5000 compete in popular games:
- FirePro R5000 is 400% faster in 900p
- FirePro R5000 is 400% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.19 | 5.98 |
| Recency | 26 November 2010 | 25 February 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 350 Watt |
HD 6550M has 1246.2% lower power consumption.
FirePro R5000, on the other hand, has a 402.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The FirePro R5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6550M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6550M is a notebook graphics card while FirePro R5000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
