Arc A550M vs Radeon RX Vega 56
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 56 with Arc A550M, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 56 outperforms Arc A550M by a substantial 38% 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 | 190 | 260 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 16.06 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.20 | 28.43 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | DG2-512 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (7 years ago) | 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 3584 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1156 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1471 MHz | 2050 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 21,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 329.5 | 262.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.54 TFLOPS | 8.397 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 224 | 128 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 256 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
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 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-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 | HBM2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
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 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | 1.3 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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 | 115
+43.8%
| 80−85
−43.8%
|
| 1440p | 77
+40%
| 55−60
−40%
|
| 4K | 50
+42.9%
| 35−40
−42.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.47 | no data |
| 1440p | 5.18 | no data |
| 4K | 7.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+36.1%
|
130−140
−36.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+44%
|
50−55
−44%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 80−85
+50%
|
50−55
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 151
+64.1%
|
90−95
−64.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+36.1%
|
130−140
−36.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+44%
|
50−55
−44%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 98
+28.9%
|
75−80
−28.9%
|
| Fortnite | 150
+30.4%
|
110−120
−30.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 141
+51.6%
|
90−95
−51.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+35.6%
|
70−75
−35.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 153
+70%
|
90−95
−70%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+22.4%
|
160−170
−22.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 140
+52.2%
|
90−95
−52.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 180−190
+36.1%
|
130−140
−36.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+9.1%
|
250−260
−9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+44%
|
50−55
−44%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+13.3%
|
120−130
−13.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+22.4%
|
75−80
−22.4%
|
| Fortnite | 139
+20.9%
|
110−120
−20.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 134
+44.1%
|
90−95
−44.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 95−100
+35.6%
|
70−75
−35.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94
+11.9%
|
80−85
−11.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70
+37.3%
|
50−55
−37.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 137
+52.2%
|
90−95
−52.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 124
+82.4%
|
65−70
−82.4%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+22.4%
|
160−170
−22.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 131
+42.4%
|
90−95
−42.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 70−75
+44%
|
50−55
−44%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+13.3%
|
120−130
−13.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+17.1%
|
75−80
−17.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 109
+17.2%
|
90−95
−17.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120
+33.3%
|
90−95
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 74
+8.8%
|
65−70
−8.8%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+22.4%
|
160−170
−22.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 108
−6.5%
|
110−120
+6.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 75−80
+52%
|
50−55
−52%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+34.1%
|
160−170
−34.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+48.8%
|
40−45
−48.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 42
+35.5%
|
30−35
−35.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0.6%
|
170−180
−0.6%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+15.9%
|
200−210
−15.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 99
+52.3%
|
65−70
−52.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+47.8%
|
21−24
−47.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 74
+39.6%
|
50−55
−39.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 88
+46.7%
|
60−65
−46.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+51.4%
|
35−40
−51.4%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 74
+34.5%
|
55−60
−34.5%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+59.1%
|
21−24
−59.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50
+16.3%
|
40−45
−16.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+42.1%
|
18−20
−42.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+29.4%
|
30−35
−29.4%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+41.5%
|
130−140
−41.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+52.8%
|
35−40
−52.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+59.1%
|
21−24
−59.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+26.3%
|
75−80
−26.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+44.4%
|
27−30
−44.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 59
+43.9%
|
40−45
−43.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 44
+83.3%
|
24−27
−83.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 37
+48%
|
24−27
−48%
|
This is how RX Vega 56 and Arc A550M compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 56 is 44% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 56 is 40% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 56 is 43% 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 Vega 56 is 83% faster.
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Epic Preset, the Arc A550M is 6% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 56 is ahead in 59 tests (98%)
- Arc A550M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 30.88 | 22.40 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 60 Watt |
RX Vega 56 has a 37.9% higher aggregate performance score.
Arc A550M, on the other hand, has a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 56 is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A550M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 56 is a desktop graphics card while Arc A550M 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.
