Radeon RX 6550M vs R5 M255
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M255 and Radeon RX 6550M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6550M outperforms R5 M255 by a whopping 1678% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1006 | 218 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 21.62 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Topaz | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 October 2014 (10 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 |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 940 MHz | 2840 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.56 | 181.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7219 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 |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | 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 | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 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 |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| Mantle | + | - |
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.
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.
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 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.
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:
| 900p | 21
−1567%
| 350−400
+1567%
|
| Full HD | 12
−467%
| 68
+467%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−2300%
| 24
+2300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5
−960%
|
53
+960%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
−750%
|
50−55
+750%
|
| Elden Ring | 1−2
−8100%
|
80−85
+8100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3750%
|
75−80
+3750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−400%
|
45
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1175%
|
50−55
+1175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10
−1130%
|
123
+1130%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9
−511%
|
55−60
+511%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3750%
|
75−80
+3750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−289%
|
35
+289%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1175%
|
50−55
+1175%
|
| Dota 2 | 14
−514%
|
85−90
+514%
|
| Elden Ring | 1−2
−8100%
|
80−85
+8100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
−120%
|
33
+120%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−2000%
|
120−130
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8
−1163%
|
101
+1163%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8
−975%
|
85−90
+975%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
−1108%
|
150−160
+1108%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−2600%
|
80−85
+2600%
|
| World of Tanks | 30−33
−760%
|
250−260
+760%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−3750%
|
75−80
+3750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−222%
|
29
+222%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1175%
|
50−55
+1175%
|
| Dota 2 | 21
−310%
|
85−90
+310%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−600%
|
75−80
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8
−1000%
|
88
+1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−947%
|
150−160
+947%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 40−45 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1844%
|
170−180
+1844%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 21−24 |
| World of Tanks | 8−9
−1975%
|
160−170
+1975%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−133%
|
21−24
+133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−950%
|
21−24
+950%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−1360%
|
70−75
+1360%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1133%
|
35−40
+1133%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−871%
|
65−70
+871%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−175%
|
40−45
+175%
|
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 20−22 |
| 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
−187%
|
40−45
+187%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2500%
|
24−27
+2500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| 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
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| 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
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
This is how R5 M255 and RX 6550M compete in popular games:
- RX 6550M is 1567% faster in 900p
- RX 6550M is 467% faster in 1080p
- RX 6550M is 2300% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Elden Ring, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 6550M is 8100% 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 | 1.41 | 25.07 |
| Recency | 12 October 2014 | 4 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 6 nm |
RX 6550M has a 1678% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6550M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M255 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
