Radeon RX 6550M vs HD 7650A
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7650A and Radeon RX 6550M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6550M outperforms HD 7650A by a whopping 1619% 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 | 1029 | 252 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.12 | 22.10 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Onega | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 January 2012 (13 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $262 | 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 | 480 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2840 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 14.40 | 181.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.576 TFLOPS | 5.816 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 24 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
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 |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 144.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | Portable Device Dependent |
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.
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 | 4−5
−1625%
| 69
+1625%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−2400%
| 25
+2400%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 65.50 | no data |
| 1440p | 262.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
This is how HD 7650A and RX 6550M compete in popular games:
- RX 6550M is 1625% faster in 1080p
- RX 6550M is 2400% faster in 1440p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.35 | 23.20 |
| Recency | 5 January 2012 | 4 January 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 80 Watt |
HD 7650A has 142.4% lower power consumption.
RX 6550M, on the other hand, has a 1618.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6550M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7650A 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.
