Radeon RX 6550M vs RX Vega 3
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 3 and Radeon RX 6550M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
6550M outperforms RX Vega 3 by a whopping 738% 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 | 850 | 268 |
| Place by popularity | 94 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.12 | 22.19 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Picasso | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 January 2019 (7 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (3 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 | 192 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1001 MHz | 2840 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,940 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.01 | 181.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3844 TFLOPS | 5.816 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 12 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 16 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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| 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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 144.0 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 outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
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.
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.
3DMark Time Spy Graphics
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 | 12
−458%
| 67
+458%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−1100%
| 24
+1100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 29
−359%
|
130−140
+359%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−750%
|
50−55
+750%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 7
−686%
|
55−60
+686%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 7
−1243%
|
90−95
+1243%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 22
−505%
|
130−140
+505%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−750%
|
50−55
+750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5
−1720%
|
91
+1720%
|
| Fortnite | 14
−736%
|
110−120
+736%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−564%
|
90−95
+564%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9
−722%
|
70−75
+722%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−608%
|
90−95
+608%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−264%
|
160−170
+264%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−944%
|
90−95
+944%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5
−2560%
|
130−140
+2560%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 23
−1009%
|
250−260
+1009%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−750%
|
50−55
+750%
|
| Dota 2 | 21
−476%
|
120−130
+476%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−950%
|
84
+950%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
−736%
|
110−120
+736%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−564%
|
90−95
+564%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
−957%
|
70−75
+957%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
−856%
|
85−90
+856%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2
−2500%
|
50−55
+2500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−608%
|
90−95
+608%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
−1283%
|
83
+1283%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−264%
|
160−170
+264%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−944%
|
90−95
+944%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−750%
|
50−55
+750%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
−537%
|
120−130
+537%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−888%
|
79
+888%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−564%
|
90−95
+564%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−608%
|
90−95
+608%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4
−1125%
|
49
+1125%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
−264%
|
160−170
+264%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
−736%
|
110−120
+736%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−733%
|
50−55
+733%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−695%
|
160−170
+695%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 30−35 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−600%
|
170−180
+600%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−704%
|
200−210
+704%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1050%
|
21−24
+1050%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−980%
|
50−55
+980%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−757%
|
60−65
+757%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−825%
|
35−40
+825%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1020%
|
55−60
+1020%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−193%
|
40−45
+193%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
−962%
|
130−140
+962%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10−11 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−875%
|
75−80
+875%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1950%
|
40−45
+1950%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−767%
|
24−27
+767%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
This is how RX Vega 3 and RX 6550M compete in popular games:
- RX 6550M is 458% faster in 1080p
- RX 6550M is 1100% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6550M is 2600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 6550M performs better in 51 tests (88%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (12%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.75 | 23.05 |
| Recency | 6 January 2019 | 4 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 80 Watt |
RX Vega 3 has 433% lower power consumption.
RX 6550M, on the other hand, has a 738% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 133% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6550M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega 3 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
