Radeon HD 6550M vs HD 6970
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6970 with Radeon HD 6550M, including specs and performance data.
HD 6970 outperforms HD 6550M by a whopping 431% 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 | 566 | 1037 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.98 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.01 | 3.64 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Cayman | Lexington |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 14 December 2010 (14 years ago) | 26 November 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $369 | no data |
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 | 1536 | 400 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 600 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 880 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,640 million | 2,154 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 550 Watt | 26 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 84.48 | 12.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.703 TFLOPS | 0.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 96 | 20 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-II |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 28.8 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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 | 70−75
+400%
| 14
−400%
|
| Full HD | 100−110
+426%
| 19
−426%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.69 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+118%
|
30−35
−118%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+467%
|
6−7
−467%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+286%
|
27−30
−286%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+218%
|
16−18
−218%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+118%
|
30−35
−118%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+218%
|
16−18
−218%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+178%
|
9−10
−178%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+118%
|
30−35
−118%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+950%
|
4−5
−950%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+563%
|
8−9
−563%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+1480%
|
5−6
−1480%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+12.5%
|
16−18
−12.5%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
This is how HD 6970 and HD 6550M compete in popular games:
- HD 6970 is 400% faster in 900p
- HD 6970 is 426% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the HD 6970 is 2900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, HD 6970 surpassed HD 6550M in all 44 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.74 | 1.27 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 550 Watt | 26 Watt |
HD 6970 has a 430.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
HD 6550M, on the other hand, has 2015.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 6970 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6550M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6970 is a desktop card while Radeon HD 6550M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
