Quadro FX 550 vs Radeon R9 390X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 390X with Quadro FX 550, including specs and performance data.

R9 390X
2015, $429
0 MB GDDR5, 275 Watt
22.16
+14673%

R9 390X outperforms FX 550 by a whopping 14673% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking2901490
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation8.56no data
Power efficiency6.200.38
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameGrenadaNV43
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (10 years ago)20 April 2006 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$429 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores2816no data
Core clock speedno data360 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,200 million146 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate184.82.880
Floating-point processing power5.914 TFLOPSno data
ROPs644
TMUs1768
L1 Cache704 KBno data
L2 Cache1024 KBno 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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length275 mm198 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin, 1 x 8-pinNone
Bridgeless CrossFire+-

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount0 MB128 MB
Memory bus width512 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1050 MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth384 GB/s12.8 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x S-Video
Eyefinity+-
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
PowerTune+-
TrueAudio+-
VCE+-
DDMA audio+no data

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 129.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.33.0
OpenGL4.62.0 (full) 2.1 (partial)
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan+N/A
Mantle+-

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.

R9 390X 22.16
+14673%
FX 550 0.15

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.

R9 390X 9266
+14608%
Samples: 1352
FX 550 63
Samples: 45

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 HD910−1
4K48-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.71no data
4K8.94no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 120−130 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 45−50 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 90−95 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 120−130 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50 0−1
Far Cry 5 70−75 0−1
Fortnite 110−120 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 90−95 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 70−75 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 45−50 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85−90 0−1
Valorant 160−170
+15900%
1−2
−15900%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 90−95 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 120−130 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260
+25000%
1−2
−25000%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50 0−1
Dota 2 110−120 0−1
Far Cry 5 70−75 0−1
Fortnite 110−120 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 90−95 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 70−75 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 80−85 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 45−50 0−1
Metro Exodus 45−50 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85−90 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 76 0−1
Valorant 160−170
+15900%
1−2
−15900%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50 0−1
Dota 2 110−120 0−1
Far Cry 5 70−75 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 90−95 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 45−50 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85−90 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 41 0−1
Valorant 160−170
+15900%
1−2
−15900%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 110−120 0−1

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 45−50 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+16000%
1−2
−16000%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45 0−1
Metro Exodus 30−33 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+17300%
1−2
−17300%
Valorant 190−200
+19600%
1−2
−19600%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 60−65 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24 0−1
Far Cry 5 50−55 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 55−60 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 24−27 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 50−55 0−1

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 21−24 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16 0−1
Metro Exodus 18−20 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29 0−1
Valorant 130−140 0−1

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 21−24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10 0−1
Dota 2 75−80 0−1
Far Cry 5 24−27 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 35−40 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 24−27 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 22.16 0.15
Recency 18 June 2015 20 April 2006
Chip lithography 28 nm 110 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 30 Watt

R9 390X has a 14673.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.

FX 550, on the other hand, has 816.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 390X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 550 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 390X is a desktop graphics card while Quadro FX 550 is a workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R9 390X
Radeon R9 390X
NVIDIA Quadro FX 550
Quadro FX 550

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.3 294 votes

Rate Radeon R9 390X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 8 votes

Rate Quadro FX 550 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 390X or Quadro FX 550, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.