UHD Graphics 770 vs Radeon HD 8550M
Aggregate performance score
UHD Graphics 770 outperforms Radeon HD 8550M by a whopping 332% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 955 | 549 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 22 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.06 | 1.29 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Alder Lake |
| GPU code name | Sun | Alder Lake xG |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 16 November 2012 (11 years ago) | 4 January 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Current price | $338 | $878 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
UHD Graphics 770 has 2050% better value for money than HD 8550M.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 850 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.00 | 26.40 |
| Floating-point performance | 544.0 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon HD 8550M and UHD Graphics 770 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | Ring Bus |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1550 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
UHD Graphics 770 outperforms Radeon HD 8550M by 332% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
UHD Graphics 770 outperforms Radeon HD 8550M by 1158% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Radeon HD 8550M outperforms UHD Graphics 770 by 31% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
UHD Graphics 770 outperforms Radeon HD 8550M by 141552% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.
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 | 3−4
−467%
| 17
+467%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−367%
| 14
+367%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−200%
|
12
+200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−225%
|
12−14
+225%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−625%
|
27−30
+625%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−92.9%
|
27
+92.9%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−178%
|
25
+178%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−108%
|
24−27
+108%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−225%
|
12−14
+225%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−625%
|
27−30
+625%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−107%
|
27−30
+107%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−111%
|
19
+111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−260%
|
18
+260%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−108%
|
24−27
+108%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−550%
|
12−14
+550%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−225%
|
12−14
+225%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−625%
|
27−30
+625%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12
−16.7%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 9−10
−88.9%
|
17
+88.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−80%
|
9
+80%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
−108%
|
24−27
+108%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−160%
|
12−14
+160%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
This is how HD 8550M and UHD Graphics 770 compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics 770 is 467% faster in 1080p
- UHD Graphics 770 is 367% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 8550M is 17% faster.
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the UHD Graphics 770 is 1000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8550M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- UHD Graphics 770 is ahead in 50 tests (98%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.42 | 6.14 |
| Recency | 16 November 2012 | 4 January 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 10 nm |
The UHD Graphics 770 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 UHD Graphics 770 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
