GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs Radeon RX Vega M GH
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega M GH with GeForce GTX 550 Ti, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega M GH outperforms GTX 550 Ti by a whopping 323% 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 | 338 | 711 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 60 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.69 |
| Power efficiency | 11.65 | 2.37 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 22 | GF116 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 February 2018 (7 years ago) | 15 March 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1536 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 1063 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1190 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 1,170 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 116 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 114.2 | 28.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.656 TFLOPS | 0.6912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 24 |
| TMUs | 96 | 32 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | 16x PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 210 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 1024 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 4.1 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 204.8 GB/s | 98.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 160−170
+321%
| 38
−321%
|
| Full HD | 59
+59.5%
| 37
−59.5%
|
| 1440p | 38
+375%
| 8−9
−375%
|
| 4K | 28
+367%
| 6−7
−367%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.03 |
| 1440p | no data | 18.63 |
| 4K | no data | 24.83 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+550%
|
14−16
−550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 39
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 81
+479%
|
14−16
−479%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+550%
|
14−16
−550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+430%
|
10−11
−430%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+324%
|
21−24
−324%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+267%
|
18−20
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 47
+488%
|
8−9
−488%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+269%
|
16−18
−269%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+146%
|
50−55
−146%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66
+371%
|
14−16
−371%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+550%
|
14−16
−550%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 200−210
+206%
|
65−70
−206%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Dota 2 | 108
+218%
|
30−35
−218%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 51
+410%
|
10−11
−410%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+324%
|
21−24
−324%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+267%
|
18−20
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+400%
|
12−14
−400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Metro Exodus | 32
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+269%
|
16−18
−269%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60
+445%
|
10−12
−445%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+146%
|
50−55
−146%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60
+329%
|
14−16
−329%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+188%
|
8−9
−188%
|
| Dota 2 | 95
+179%
|
30−35
−179%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+370%
|
10−11
−370%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+267%
|
18−20
−267%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+269%
|
16−18
−269%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 34
+209%
|
10−12
−209%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+146%
|
50−55
−146%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 85−90
+324%
|
21−24
−324%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+321%
|
27−30
−321%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+417%
|
30−33
−417%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+300%
|
40−45
−300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 43
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+344%
|
9−10
−344%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+368%
|
18−20
−368%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+375%
|
12−14
−375%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+600%
|
4−5
−600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
This is how RX Vega M GH and GTX 550 Ti compete in popular games:
- RX Vega M GH is 321% faster in 900p
- RX Vega M GH is 59% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega M GH is 375% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega M GH is 367% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega M GH is 900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX Vega M GH surpassed GTX 550 Ti in all 58 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.73 | 3.48 |
| Recency | 1 February 2018 | 15 March 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 116 Watt |
RX Vega M GH has a 323.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 16% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega M GH is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 550 Ti in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega M GH is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 550 Ti is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
