Quadro FX 550 vs Radeon RX 560
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 560 with Quadro FX 550, including specs and performance data.
RX 560 outperforms FX 550 by a whopping 5767% 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 | 534 | 1490 |
| Place by popularity | 100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.48 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.03 | 0.39 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | NV43 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (8 years ago) | 20 April 2006 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99 | 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 | 1024 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1175 MHz | 360 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1275 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 146 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 81.60 | 2.880 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.611 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 64 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 170 mm | 198 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.0 (full) 2.1 (partial) |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
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 | 35 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.83 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.80 | 0.15 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 20 April 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 30 Watt |
RX 560 has a 5767% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 686% more advanced lithography process.
FX 550, on the other hand, has 150% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 560 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 550 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 560 is a desktop graphics card while Quadro FX 550 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
