Radeon RX 7800 XT vs HD 8550M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8550M with Radeon RX 7800 XT, including specs and performance data.
RX 7800 XT outperforms HD 8550M by a whopping 4157% 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 | 1023 | 42 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 51 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 68.20 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 16.37 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025) |
| GPU code name | Sun | Navi 32 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 13 July 2014 (10 years ago) | 25 August 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $499 |
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 | 320 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 1295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 850 MHz | 2430 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 28,100 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 263 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.00 | 583.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.544 TFLOPS | 37.32 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 96 |
| TMUs | 20 | 240 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 60 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2438 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 624.1 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, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
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 | 5−6
−4160%
| 213
+4160%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−6050%
| 123
+6050%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−7100%
| 72
+7100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.34 |
| 1440p | no data | 4.06 |
| 4K | no data | 6.93 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−4940%
|
252
+4940%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−8167%
|
248
+8167%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−3880%
|
199
+3880%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−8150%
|
160−170
+8150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−6433%
|
196
+6433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−10100%
|
204
+10100%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−6625%
|
260−270
+6625%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−3375%
|
278
+3375%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−27500%
|
276
+27500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1660%
|
170−180
+1660%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−844%
|
300−350
+844%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−3300%
|
170
+3300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−8150%
|
160−170
+8150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−797%
|
270−280
+797%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−5333%
|
163
+5333%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−4018%
|
700−750
+4018%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−9700%
|
196
+9700%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−6625%
|
260−270
+6625%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−3163%
|
261
+3163%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−25500%
|
256
+25500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−17700%
|
178
+17700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−8500%
|
172
+8500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1660%
|
170−180
+1660%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−5129%
|
366
+5129%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−844%
|
300−350
+844%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 5−6
−3240%
|
167
+3240%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−8150%
|
160−170
+8150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−4900%
|
150
+4900%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−4018%
|
700−750
+4018%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−9000%
|
182
+9000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−2675%
|
222
+2675%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1660%
|
170−180
+1660%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2757%
|
200
+2757%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−844%
|
300−350
+844%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
−6625%
|
260−270
+6625%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−17400%
|
175
+17400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−4700%
|
400−450
+4700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1844%
|
170−180
+1844%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−5229%
|
350−400
+5229%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−9800%
|
99
+9800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−17500%
|
176
+17500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−6633%
|
202
+6633%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−14600%
|
147
+14600%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−7450%
|
150−160
+7450%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−850%
|
152
+850%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−4486%
|
300−350
+4486%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 45 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−3900%
|
40−45
+3900%
|
| 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 | 351
+0%
|
351
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 355
+0%
|
355
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 283
+0%
|
283
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 140
+0%
|
140
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Baldur's Gate 3 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 164
+0%
|
164
+0%
|
This is how HD 8550M and RX 7800 XT compete in popular games:
- RX 7800 XT is 4160% faster in 1080p
- RX 7800 XT is 6050% faster in 1440p
- RX 7800 XT is 7100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 7800 XT is 27500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 7800 XT is ahead in 46 tests (74%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (26%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.43 | 60.87 |
| Recency | 13 July 2014 | 25 August 2023 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
RX 7800 XT has a 4156.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 7800 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8550M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8550M is a notebook card while Radeon RX 7800 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
