AMD Radeon 550X vs AMD Radeon HD 8850M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only common benchmark recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The AMD Radeon 550X scores 8,866 points, while the AMD Radeon HD 8850M scores 7,447 points. That puts the 550X ahead by 19.1%, a substantial margin for a mobile-class GPU comparison.

This 19.1% gap is not a marginal win; it represents a full tier of separation in raw compute throughput. The 550X’s OpenCL score places it at the 45th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the HD 8850M sits at the 40th percentile. In practical terms, the 550X is closer to mid-range desktop parts from its era, whereas the HD 8850M is firmly in entry-level territory.

Looking at the 550X’s nearest rivals reinforces its position. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 by just 1.2% (8,866 vs 9,022) and the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition by 1.3% (8,866 vs 9,037). Those are surprising comparisons, since the TITAN V is a much larger and more expensive part, but the database’s average benchmark scores show the 550X hanging within striking distance of both. Meanwhile, it sits 0.6% above the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863) and 0.8% above the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851). The 550X effectively lands in a dense cluster of GPUs scoring around 8,800 to 9,000, where small percentage swings separate rivals.

The HD 8850M’s nearest rivals tell a different story. It scores 0.1% above the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7,441) and 0.3% above the AMD Radeon R7 350 (7,425). But it falls 0.3% short of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 (7,472) and 1.4% short of the Intel Arc A310 (7,550). The HD 8850M is therefore bracketed by integrated graphics and low-end discrete parts, with the GTX 1650 and Arc A310 representing modest but real performance steps above it.

Given that the HD 8850M has no Vulkan benchmark recorded, the 550X’s additional Geekbench Vulkan score of 8,970 is worth noting. That figure is actually higher than its OpenCL result, suggesting the 550X handles Vulkan workloads slightly better than OpenCL ones. The HD 8850M cannot be compared on this front, as the database contains no Vulkan data for it.

The head-to-head record stands at 1 win for the 550X and 0 wins for the HD 8850M. There is no benchmark in the database where the older card comes out ahead. The 19.1% OpenCL lead is the single data point that defines this matchup, and it is a clear one.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations of AMD’s Graphics Core Next architecture. The Radeon 550X uses GCN 4.0, built on the Lexa chip, while the Radeon HD 8850M uses GCN 1.0, built on the Venus chip. That architectural gap spans several revisions and explains much of the performance difference.

Manufacturing processes differ sharply. The 550X is fabricated on a 14 nm node at GlobalFoundries, while the HD 8850M uses a 28 nm node at TSMC. The smaller node allows the 550X to pack 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The HD 8850M, by contrast, contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. Despite having fewer transistors overall, the HD 8850M’s die is actually larger, a direct consequence of the older, less dense process.

Clock speeds also favor the 550X significantly. The 550X runs at a base clock of 1,082 MHz and boosts to 1,218 MHz. The HD 8850M runs at just 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost. That is nearly a doubling of clock frequency, which more than compensates for the HD 8850M’s higher raw component counts.

Indeed, the HD 8850M has more execution resources on paper: 640 shading units versus 512, and 40 texture mapping units versus 32. Both have 16 ROPs. But the 550X’s higher clocks flip the performance equation. Its pixel rate reaches 19.49 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s for the HD 8850M, a 94.9% advantage. Its texture rate is 38.98 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s, a 55.9% advantage. Floating-point throughput follows the same pattern, with the 550X delivering 1,247.2 GFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS, a 55.9% lead.

Memory subsystems also differ in speed if not in capacity. The 550X pairs 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus with memory clocked at 1,750 MHz, or 7 Gbps effective, for a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. The HD 8850M also has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, but memory runs at 1,000 MHz, or 4 Gbps effective, yielding just 64.00 GB/s. The 550X offers 75% more memory bandwidth, which matters for texture-heavy scenes and higher resolutions.

API support slightly favors the 550X. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The HD 8850M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.150. The newer Vulkan version and higher feature level give the 550X better compatibility with recent titles and emerging graphics effects.

The 550X is a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface card, the HD 8850M is PCIe 3.0 x16. Both are end-of-life products. The 550X has a 50 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU requirement, though the HD 8850M has no TDP or PSU data recorded. The 550X is a dual-slot card with no power connectors, and its 145 mm length (5.7 inches) fits standard laptop chassis dimensions.

The HD 8850M belongs to the Solar System generation, specifically the HD 8800M family, and its predecessor is the London, successor is the Gem System. The 550X belongs to the Polaris generation (RX 500X), with predecessor Polaris, successor Vega.

FAQ

Q: Is the Radeon 550X faster than the HD 8850M in every benchmarked test?

A: yes, the only head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the 550X winning with a 19.1% higher score (8,866 vs 7,447). The database records 1 win for the 550X and 0 for the HD 8850M.

Q: How does the Radeon 550X compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: It sits 0.6% above the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, 0.8% above the AMD Radeon R9 M265X, 1.2% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660, and 1.3% below the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition. Its average benchmark score is 8,918.

Q: Does the HD 8850M have any advantage in shading units?

A: Yes, the HD 8850M has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, versus 512 shading units and 32 TMUs for the 550X. However, the 550X’s much higher clock speeds (1,082 MHz base, 1,218 MHz boost vs 575/625 MHz) result in far higher fill rates and compute throughput.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The 550X delivers 112.0 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus at 7 Gbps effective. The HD 8850M delivers 64.00 GB/s from the same 2 GB GDDR5 configuration but at 4 Gbps effective.

Q: Which card supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the HD 8850M supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The 550X also supports Vulkan 1.3 versus Vulkan 1.2.170 for the HD 8850M.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life?

A: Yes, both the Radeon 550X and the Radeon HD 8850M are listed as end-of-life products in the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon 550X | AMD Radeon HD 8850M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Lexa | Venus |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Polaris (RX 500X) | Solar System (HD 8800M) |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1082 MHz | 575 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1218 MHz | 625 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 640 |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 19.49 GPixel/s | 10.00 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 38.98 GTexel/s | 25.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,247.2 GFLOPS | 800.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,247.2 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not specified |

| TDP | 50 W | Not specified |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Not specified |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | Not specified |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 145 mm (5.7 inches) | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2019-03-26 | 2013-03-31 |

| Predecessor | Polaris | London |

| Successor | Vega | Gem System |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 8,866 | 7,447 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 8,970 | Not recorded |

| Average Benchmark Score | 8,918 | 7,447 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 45 | 40 |

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon 550X as the clear choice for anyone comparing these two directly. In the only shared benchmark, it leads by 19.1%, and that advantage is consistent across every architectural metric recorded. The 550X delivers 94.9% higher pixel rate, 55.9% higher texture rate, 55.9% higher FP32 throughput, and 75% higher memory bandwidth. It also supports newer API versions, including DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, which matter for modern titles.

The HD 8850M’s sole redeeming qualities are its higher shading unit and TMU counts, plus a wider PCIe interface (x16 versus x8). But those do not translate into any benchmark win in the database. Its 640 shading units are hamstrung by clock speeds below 700 MHz, and its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is a clear bottleneck for memory-bound tasks.

The 550X also holds a higher position in the overall GPU hierarchy, at the 45th percentile versus the 40th percentile. Its nearest rivals include desktop parts like the GTX 660 and even the TITAN V CEO Edition, though the latter comparison is within 1.3%, which is effectively noise. The HD 8850M’s rivals are integrated graphics and low-end dGPUs, a lower competitive tier entirely.

For a user choosing between these two, the 550X is the superior performer in every measurable way. It is newer, built on a smaller process node, clocked far higher, and delivers better memory performance. The HD 8850M might still be relevant for legacy systems that require its specific form factor or bus interface, but for raw compute and gaming performance, the 550X wins outright.

The only scenario where the HD 8850M makes sense is if the system requires a PCIe 3.0 x16 connection, since the 550X uses x8. But even that advantage is unlikely to compensate for a 19.1% compute deficit. The database’s single head-to-head result, combined with the stark architectural differences, makes the verdict straightforward: pick the 550X unless a specific hardware constraint forces the older card.