Radeon Pro WX 8200 vs HD 6550M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6550M with Radeon Pro WX 8200, including specs and performance data.
Pro 8200 outperforms HD 6550M by a whopping 2290% 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 | 1081 | 211 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 7.65 |
| Power efficiency | 3.73 | 10.08 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Lexington | Vega 10 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 26 November 2010 (15 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
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 | 3584 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,154 million | 12,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 336.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 10.75 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 20 | 224 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 4 MB |
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 |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 | DDR3 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 2048 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 512.0 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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.125 |
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
−2043%
| 300−350
+2043%
|
| Full HD | 19
−2268%
| 450−500
+2268%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.22 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−2275%
|
190−200
+2275%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2233%
|
210−220
+2233%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2173%
|
750−800
+2173%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−2141%
|
650−700
+2141%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−2253%
|
400−450
+2253%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−2275%
|
190−200
+2275%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2233%
|
210−220
+2233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2186%
|
160−170
+2186%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2173%
|
750−800
+2173%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−2253%
|
400−450
+2253%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−2275%
|
190−200
+2275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−2233%
|
210−220
+2233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2186%
|
160−170
+2186%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−2173%
|
750−800
+2173%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−2275%
|
95−100
+2275%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−2275%
|
190−200
+2275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−2208%
|
300−310
+2208%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2233%
|
70−75
+2233%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−2043%
|
300−310
+2043%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−2233%
|
140−150
+2233%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2150%
|
45−50
+2150%
|
This is how HD 6550M and Pro WX 8200 compete in popular games:
- Pro WX 8200 is 2043% faster in 900p
- Pro WX 8200 is 2268% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.26 | 30.11 |
| Recency | 26 November 2010 | 13 August 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 230 Watt |
HD 6550M has 785% lower power consumption.
Pro WX 8200, on the other hand, has a 2290% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 186% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro WX 8200 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 Radeon Pro WX 8200 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.
