Radeon RX 550 Mobile vs Titan X Pascal
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Titan X Pascal with Radeon RX 550 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
Titan X Pascal outperforms 550 Mobile by a whopping 383% 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 | 198 | 614 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.07 | 4.47 |
| Power efficiency | 9.56 | 9.90 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | Lexa |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 August 2016 (9 years ago) | 2 July 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,199 | $79.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Titan X Pascal has 36% better value for money than RX 550 Mobile.
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 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 1417 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1531 MHz | 1287 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 342.9 | 51.48 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.97 TFLOPS | 1.647 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 16 |
| TMUs | 224 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 1.3 MB | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 3 MB | 512 KB |
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 | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1251 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 480.4 GB/s | 96 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 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 Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 124
+727%
| 15
−727%
|
| 1440p | 74
+429%
| 14−16
−429%
|
| 4K | 58
+383%
| 12−14
−383%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 9.67
−81.3%
| 5.33
+81.3%
|
| 1440p | 16.20
−184%
| 5.71
+184%
|
| 4K | 20.67
−210%
| 6.67
+210%
|
- RX 550 Mobile has 81% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 550 Mobile has 184% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 550 Mobile has 210% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 337
+953%
|
30−35
−953%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 83
+730%
|
10
−730%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 153
+446%
|
27−30
−446%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 291
+666%
|
38
−666%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 74
+469%
|
12−14
−469%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 116
+346%
|
24−27
−346%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 162
+800%
|
18
−800%
|
| Fortnite | 210
+425%
|
40−45
−425%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 127
+338%
|
27−30
−338%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 119
+815%
|
13
−815%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 113
+371%
|
24−27
−371%
|
| Valorant | 296
+311%
|
70−75
−311%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 147
+425%
|
27−30
−425%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 205
+1764%
|
11
−1764%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+158%
|
100−110
−158%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65
+400%
|
12−14
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 252
+460%
|
45
−460%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 115
+342%
|
24−27
−342%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 149
+893%
|
15
−893%
|
| Fortnite | 199
+398%
|
40−45
−398%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 121
+317%
|
27−30
−317%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 106
+960%
|
10
−960%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160
+789%
|
18
−789%
|
| Metro Exodus | 96
+2300%
|
4
−2300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 113
+371%
|
24−27
−371%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 184
+982%
|
17
−982%
|
| Valorant | 275
+282%
|
70−75
−282%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 137
+389%
|
27−30
−389%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 57
+338%
|
12−14
−338%
|
| Dota 2 | 232
+440%
|
43
−440%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 112
+331%
|
24−27
−331%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 140
+977%
|
13
−977%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 112
+286%
|
27−30
−286%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 102
+325%
|
24−27
−325%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95
+296%
|
24
−296%
|
| Valorant | 181
+151%
|
70−75
−151%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 170
+325%
|
40−45
−325%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 111
+825%
|
12−14
−825%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+342%
|
50−55
−342%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 103
+1371%
|
7−8
−1371%
|
| Metro Exodus | 58
+867%
|
6−7
−867%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+349%
|
35−40
−349%
|
| Valorant | 258
+253%
|
70−75
−253%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+664%
|
10−12
−664%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 37
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 87
+625%
|
12−14
−625%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 101
+677%
|
12−14
−677%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+467%
|
14−16
−467%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+511%
|
9−10
−511%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85
+515%
|
12−14
−515%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 99
+482%
|
16−18
−482%
|
| Metro Exodus | 36
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+1600%
|
4−5
−1600%
|
| Valorant | 257
+679%
|
30−35
−679%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 71
+1320%
|
5−6
−1320%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Dota 2 | 160
+596%
|
21−24
−596%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 45
+800%
|
5−6
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 53
+783%
|
6−7
−783%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 73
+630%
|
10−11
−630%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 44
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 60
+900%
|
6−7
−900%
|
This is how Titan X Pascal and RX 550 Mobile compete in popular games:
- Titan X Pascal is 727% faster in 1080p
- Titan X Pascal is 429% faster in 1440p
- Titan X Pascal is 383% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Titan X Pascal is 3500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Titan X Pascal surpassed RX 550 Mobile in all 62 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 31.15 | 6.45 |
| Recency | 2 August 2016 | 2 July 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 50 Watt |
Titan X Pascal has a 382.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 550 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The Titan X Pascal is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 550 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Titan X Pascal is a desktop graphics card while Radeon RX 550 Mobile 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.
