Arc A550M vs Radeon RX 8060S
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 8060S and Arc A550M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
8060S outperforms A550M 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 | 118 | 282 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 28.98 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | no data | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 January 2025 (1 year ago) | 2022 (4 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 | 40 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2900 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | no data | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 262.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 8.397 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 128 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 256 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 3 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 8 MB |
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 | no data | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 224.0 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 | no data | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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 | 103
+87.3%
| 55−60
−87.3%
|
| 1440p | 51
+88.9%
| 27−30
−88.9%
|
| 4K | 35
+94.4%
| 18−20
−94.4%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+71%
|
130−140
−71%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100
+92%
|
50−55
−92%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 110−120
+106%
|
50−55
−106%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+48.9%
|
90−95
−48.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 215
+64.1%
|
130−140
−64.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100
+92%
|
50−55
−92%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 96
+28%
|
75−80
−28%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+53%
|
110−120
−53%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+70.7%
|
90−95
−70.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+76.7%
|
70−75
−76.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+76.7%
|
90−95
−76.7%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+45.1%
|
160−170
−45.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+48.9%
|
90−95
−48.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 109
−20.2%
|
130−140
+20.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+10.3%
|
250−260
−10.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100
+92%
|
50−55
−92%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 95
+26.7%
|
75−80
−26.7%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+53%
|
110−120
−53%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+70.7%
|
90−95
−70.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+76.7%
|
70−75
−76.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 127
+51.2%
|
80−85
−51.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95−100
+92.2%
|
50−55
−92.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+76.7%
|
90−95
−76.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140−150
+118%
|
65−70
−118%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+45.1%
|
160−170
−45.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+48.9%
|
90−95
−48.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100
+92%
|
50−55
−92%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 92
+22.7%
|
75−80
−22.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+70.7%
|
90−95
−70.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+76.7%
|
90−95
−76.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 101
+48.5%
|
65−70
−48.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 170−180
+53%
|
110−120
−53%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 71
+44.9%
|
45−50
−44.9%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 280−290
+75.6%
|
160−170
−75.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70
+66.7%
|
40−45
−66.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+93.5%
|
30−35
−93.5%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+33.2%
|
190−200
−33.2%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+58.5%
|
65−70
−58.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+113%
|
21−24
−113%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−105
+92.3%
|
50−55
−92.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+100%
|
55−60
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80
+119%
|
35−40
−119%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+98.2%
|
55−60
−98.2%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36
+63.6%
|
21−24
−63.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 76
+76.7%
|
40−45
−76.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+100%
|
18−20
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+94.1%
|
30−35
−94.1%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+84.4%
|
130−140
−84.4%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+85.7%
|
35−40
−85.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+104%
|
27−30
−104%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+97.5%
|
40−45
−97.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+138%
|
24−27
−138%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+116%
|
24−27
−116%
|
Full HD
High
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
1440p
High
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
This is how RX 8060S and Arc A550M compete in popular games:
- RX 8060S is 87% faster in 1080p
- RX 8060S is 89% faster in 1440p
- RX 8060S is 94% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 8060S is 138% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Arc A550M is 20% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 8060S performs better in 53 tests (88%)
- Arc A550M performs better in 1 test (2%)
- there's a draw in 6 tests (10%)
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
