AMD Radeon 550X vs AMD Radeon R9 M265X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a single direct comparison between these two GPUs, and it is exceptionally close. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8,866 points, while the AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8,851 points. The delta is a razor-thin 0.2% in favor of the 550X. This is effectively a statistical tie, though the 550X does claim the sole head-to-head win in the dataset.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the two cards occupy nearly identical positions in the performance hierarchy. The 550X has an average benchmark score of 8,918, placing it at the 45th percentile of all GPUs. The R9 M265X averages 8,851, sitting at the 44th percentile. The 0.8% difference in their average scores is marginal. For context, the 550X is 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863) and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 (9,022). The R9 M265X, meanwhile, is 0.1% behind the Pro WX 5100 and 1.2% ahead of both the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (8,746) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (8,743).

The performance spread across all these rivals is remarkably narrow — less than 2% separates the RTX 3050 A Mobile at the bottom from the TITAN V CEO Edition (9,037) at the top, with the 550X trailing that TITAN V by 1.3%. Neither AMD card manages to decisively outclass the other in any measurable way. The 550X's Vulkan score of 8,970 is its only other benchmark entry, and it is consistent with its OpenCL result. The R9 M265X has no Vulkan score listed, so the 550X also holds the advantage in API coverage within this data set.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon 550X is the marginally faster card. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, has a higher average score (8,918 vs. 8,851), and sits one percentile point higher in the global ranking (45th vs. 44th). The 0.8% average score advantage is real but barely perceptible in real-world terms. A user choosing between these two based purely on raw compute performance would be splitting hairs.

However, the R9 M265X is not a loser here. Its OpenCL score of 8,851 is within 0.2% of the 550X's result in the direct comparison. In the nearest-rivals table, the R9 M265X is listed as 0.8% behind the 550X, but it is 1.2% ahead of the RTX 3050 A Mobile and the GTX 460 v2. That means the older card is still competitive against much newer hardware in the same performance bracket.

The verdict is nuanced. For users who prioritize the latest API support and the slight edge in compute benchmarks, the 550X is the pick. For users who already own an R9 M265X, there is no compelling reason to upgrade based on this data alone — the performance delta is too small to justify any change. The 550X is the winner, but it is a victory by a nose, not by a knockout.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras of AMD's design philosophy, and the data shows a clear generational shift. The 550X is built on the Lexa chip using the GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It belongs to the Polaris (RX 500X) generation. The R9 M265X uses the Venus chip with the original GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and belongs to the Gem System (R9 M200) generation.

The transistor counts tell a story of density improvement. The 550X packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a density of 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The R9 M265X has 1,500 million transistors on a larger 123 mm² die, giving a density of just 12.2 million per square millimeter. The newer process node allows the 550X to fit 46.7% more transistors into a smaller physical area.

Clock speeds are dramatically different. The 550X runs at a base clock of 1082 MHz and boosts to 1218 MHz. The R9 M265X is much slower in raw clock terms, with a base of 575 MHz and a boost of 625 MHz. This nearly doubles the 550X's clock advantage. The memory also differs: the 550X uses 1750 MHz memory (7 Gbps effective) delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the R9 M265X uses 1000 MHz memory (4 Gbps effective) for 64.00 GB/s. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

The compute unit composition is counterintuitive. The R9 M265X actually has more shading units (640 vs. 512), more texture mapping units (40 vs. 32), and the same number of ROPs (16). Yet the 550X achieves higher throughput because of its clock speed advantage. The 550X delivers 19.49 GPixel/s pixel rate and 38.98 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 10.00 GPixel/s and 25.00 GTexel/s for the R9 M265X. The FP32 compute is 1,247.2 GFLOPS for the 550X versus 800.0 GFLOPS for the R9 M265X — a 55.9% advantage. The 550X also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1,247.2 GFLOPS), while the R9 M265X has no FP16 data listed.

API support shows the generational gap. The 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 550X also has a different bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8 vs. x16) and is the only one with listed display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a). The 550X has a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors with a 250 W suggested PSU, while the R9 M265X has no TDP or power data listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 550X has an average benchmark score of 8,918, which is 0.8% higher than the AMD Radeon R9 M265X's average of 8,851.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the direct OpenCL test?

A: The 550X scores 8,866 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the R9 M265X scores 8,851. The 550X wins by a 0.2% margin.

Q: Does the R9 M265X have more shading units?

A: Yes, the R9 M265X has 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units, compared to 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units on the 550X. Despite this, the 550X has higher overall compute throughput due to its much higher clock speeds.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The 550X is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the R9 M265X uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The 550X also achieves a higher transistor density of 21.4 million per mm² versus 12.2 million per mm².

Q: Which card has better memory bandwidth?

A: The 550X has significantly better memory bandwidth at 112.0 GB/s, compared to 64.00 GB/s for the R9 M265X. Both cards use 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The 550X was released on March 26, 2019, while the R9 M265X was released on March 20, 2014.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon 550X wins on: raw compute throughput in every measurable category. Its FP32 performance of 1,247.2 GFLOPS is 55.9% higher than the R9 M265X's 800.0 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 19.49 GPixel/s nearly doubles the R9 M265X's 10.00 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 38.98 GTexel/s beats 25.00 GTexel/s by 55.9%. The 550X also has 75% more memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s vs. 64.00 GB/s) and much higher clock speeds (1082 MHz base / 1218 MHz boost vs. 575 MHz / 625 MHz). It supports newer APIs including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0). It is the only one of the two with listed display outputs and specified power requirements (50 W TDP, 250 W suggested PSU, no power connectors needed).

AMD Radeon R9 M265X wins on: component count and efficiency of design in certain areas. It has 25% more shading units (640 vs. 512) and 25% more texture mapping units (40 vs. 32). It uses a wider PCIe bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x16 vs. x8 on the 550X). In the nearest-rivals comparison, the R9 M265X shows a 1.2% advantage over the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2, indicating it holds its own against newer and older competitors alike. Its release date of March 20, 2014, means it has been on the market longer, which could imply more mature driver support in legacy scenarios, though the data does not directly confirm this.

The split verdict: For any task that stresses raw compute, memory bandwidth, or modern API features, the 550X is the clear choice. Its performance advantage is consistent across all throughput metrics. For users who value the higher shading unit count — which can benefit certain compute workloads that scale with parallel lanes rather than clock speed — the R9 M265X retains a theoretical edge. However, the benchmark data shows that this theoretical advantage does not translate into a win in the actual OpenCL test. The 550X wins where it counts: on the scoreboard.