T550 Mobile vs Radeon Pro W6800X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W6800X with T550 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6800X outperforms T550 Mobile by a whopping 209% 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 | 158 | 452 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.07 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.53 | 38.13 |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Navi 21 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 3 August 2021 (4 years ago) | May 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,799 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 3840 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1065 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2087 MHz | 1665 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 26,800 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 500.9 | 106.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 16.03 TFLOPS | 3.41 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 32 |
| TMUs | 240 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 60 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 960 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 1 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | 128 MB | no data |
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 | Apple MPX | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | Quad-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | Apple MPX | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 512.0 GB/s | 96 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| 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 | 1x HDMI 2.1, 4x Thunderbolt | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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 | 150−160
+194%
| 51
−194%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 18.66 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 92
+0%
|
92
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
This is how Pro W6800X and T550 Mobile compete in popular games:
- Pro W6800X is 194% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 34.93 | 11.32 |
| Recency | 3 August 2021 | on May 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 23 Watt |
Pro W6800X has a 208.6% higher aggregate performance score, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.
T550 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 months, and 769.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W6800X is our recommended choice as it beats the T550 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W6800X is a workstation graphics card while T550 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
