Radeon RX 6550M vs HD 8670D

Place in the ranking	1019	220
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	0.95	21.71
Architecture	TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	Devastator	Navi 24
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	12 March 2013 (11 years ago)	4 January 2023 (2 years ago)

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	384	1024
Core clock speed	844 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	950 MHz	2840 MHz
Number of transistors	1,303 million	5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	32 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	80 Watt
Texture fill rate	22.80	181.8
Floating-point processing power	0.7296 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	IGP	PCIe 4.0 x4
Width	IGP	no data
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	System Shared	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	4 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	144.0 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

No outputs

Portable Device Dependent

API 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. 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.

HD 8670D 1.36

RX 6550M 24.90
+1731%

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.

HD 8670D 528

RX 6550M 9692
+1736%

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.

HD 8670D 1547

RX 6550M 20506
+1226%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

HD 8670D 1157

RX 6550M 14696
+1170%

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	16 −344%	71 +344%
1440p	1−2 −2300%	24 +2300%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −657%	53 +657%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1175%	50−55 +1175%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −7600%	75−80 +7600%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −557%	46 +557%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1175%	50−55 +1175%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −1267%	123 +1267%
Metro Exodus	0−1	65−70
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −686%	55−60 +686%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −7600%	75−80 +7600%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −400%	35 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1175%	50−55 +1175%
Dota 2	7 −1143%	85−90 +1143%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −200%	33 +200%
Fortnite	6−7 −2000%	120−130 +2000%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −1022%	101 +1022%
Grand Theft Auto V	10 −760%	85−90 +760%
Metro Exodus	0−1	65−70
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −953%	150−160 +953%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −686%	55−60 +686%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −1071%	80−85 +1071%
World of Tanks	27−30 −790%	250−260 +790%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −7600%	75−80 +7600%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −314%	29 +314%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1175%	50−55 +1175%
Dota 2	1−2 −8600%	85−90 +8600%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −600%	75−80 +600%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −878%	88 +878%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −953%	150−160 +953%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −2088%	170−180 +2088%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	21−24
World of Tanks	8−9 −1975%	160−170 +1975%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −1380%	70−75 +1380%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2 −3900%	40−45 +3900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −640%	35−40 +640%
Valorant	6−7 −1033%	65−70 +1033%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Dota 2	16−18 −175%	40−45 +175%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	4−5 −1825%	75−80 +1825%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	16−18
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −193%	40−45 +193%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −2500%	24−27 +2500%
Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Dota 2	16−18 −175%	40−45 +175%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −3200%	30−35 +3200%
Valorant	1−2 −3200%	30−35 +3200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Forza Horizon 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Forza Horizon 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Valorant	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Metro Exodus	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

4K
High Preset

Metro Exodus

18−20

+0%

18−20

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Fortnite	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

This is how HD 8670D and RX 6550M compete in popular games:

RX 6550M is 344% faster in 1080p
RX 6550M is 2300% faster in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6550M is 8600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX 6550M is ahead in 44 tests (75%)
there's a draw in 15 tests (25%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.36	24.90
Recency	12 March 2013	4 January 2023
Chip lithography	32 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	80 Watt

RX 6550M has a 1730.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 433.3% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 6550M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8670D in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8670D is a desktop card while Radeon RX 6550M is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.