Radeon RX 550 Mobile vs R9 270X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 270X with Radeon RX 550 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
R9 270X outperforms 550 Mobile by an impressive 79% 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 | 446 | 609 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.82 | 4.47 |
| Power efficiency | 4.95 | 9.93 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | Curacao | Lexa |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (12 years ago) | 2 July 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $79.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 270X has 8% better value for money than RX 550 Mobile.
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 | 1280 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1100 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | 1287 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 84.00 | 51.48 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.688 TFLOPS | 1.647 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 80 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
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 | large |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 96 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | - |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | + |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
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.
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:
| Full HD | 27−30
+68.8%
| 16
−68.8%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.37
−47.4%
| 5.00
+47.4%
|
- RX 550 Mobile has 47% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+97%
|
30−35
−97%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+140%
|
10
−140%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+61.5%
|
13
−61.5%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+85.7%
|
27−30
−85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+71.1%
|
38
−71.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+84.6%
|
12−14
−84.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+117%
|
18
−117%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+177%
|
13
−177%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+200%
|
7
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+47.2%
|
70−75
−47.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+85.7%
|
27−30
−85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+491%
|
11
−491%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+58.9%
|
100−110
−58.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+84.6%
|
12−14
−84.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+77.8%
|
45
−77.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+160%
|
15
−160%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+260%
|
10
−260%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+150%
|
18
−150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+500%
|
4
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+82.4%
|
17
−82.4%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+47.2%
|
70−75
−47.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+85.7%
|
27−30
−85.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+84.6%
|
12−14
−84.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+86%
|
43
−86%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+200%
|
13
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+29.2%
|
24
−29.2%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+47.2%
|
70−75
−47.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+72.5%
|
40−45
−72.5%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+74.5%
|
50−55
−74.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+133%
|
35−40
−133%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+71.6%
|
70−75
−71.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+92.3%
|
12−14
−92.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+100%
|
12−14
−100%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+27.8%
|
18−20
−27.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+90.9%
|
30−35
−90.9%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
This is how R9 270X and RX 550 Mobile compete in popular games:
- R9 270X is 69% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 270X is 700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, R9 270X surpassed RX 550 Mobile in all 64 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.02 | 6.14 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 2 July 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 50 Watt |
R9 270X has a 79.5% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 550 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 260% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 270X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 550 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 270X is a desktop graphics card while Radeon RX 550 Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
