AMD Radeon 550X vs AMD Radeon R9 M375 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile and entry-level discrete GPUs. The AMD Radeon R9 M375 wins both recorded head-to-head tests, taking the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. The AMD Radeon 550X, despite being the newer part with a more advanced architecture, does not secure a single win in the comparative database entries. That does not mean the 550X is without merits, but its advantages show up in efficiency and feature set rather than raw compute scores.

Looking at the broader database percentiles, the R9 M375 sits at the 48th percentile among all GPUs, while the 550X lands at the 45th percentile. The gap is small but consistent: the older GCN 1.0 part outperforms the newer GCN 4.0 part in both synthetic workloads recorded. The average benchmark score tells the same story, with the R9 M375 at 10070 versus the 550X at 8918, a difference of roughly 12.9 percent.

The R9 M375 wins on raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 10457 surpasses the 550X's 8866 by 17.9 percent. In Vulkan, the R9 M375 scores 9682 against 8970 for the 550X, a 7.9 percent advantage. These are the only two tests in the head-to-head table, so the verdict is unambiguous: for anyone prioritizing compute performance in these specific workloads, the older card is the stronger choice.

The 550X, however, counters with architectural modernity. It belongs to the Polaris generation, uses a 14 nm process, and supports DirectX 12 (12_0) versus the R9 M375's DirectX 12 (11_1). It also lists Vulkan 1.3 support compared to the R9 M375's Vulkan 1.2.170. These are qualitative advantages that do not translate into higher scores in the recorded benchmarks, but they matter for software compatibility and feature exposure in newer titles and applications.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras of AMD's design philosophy. The R9 M375 uses the Tropo chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The 550X uses the Lexa chip based on GCN 4.0, built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process. It integrates 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, achieving a density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The newer node allows the 550X to fit nearly 47 percent more transistors into a smaller physical area.

The compute unit configuration differs as well. The R9 M375 fields 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The 550X has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and the same 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders and TMUs, the 550X reaches a higher pixel rate of 19.49 GPixel/s versus the R9 M375's 16.24 GPixel/s, thanks to its higher clock speeds. The texture rate is closer: 38.98 GTexel/s for the 550X against 40.60 GTexel/s for the R9 M375.

Clock speeds explain part of the story. The R9 M375 runs a base clock of 1000 MHz with a boost of 1015 MHz. The 550X starts at 1082 MHz and boosts to 1218 MHz. That is a meaningful clock advantage for the newer part. Yet the R9 M375 still wins the compute benchmarks, which suggests that its larger shader count (640 versus 512) compensates for the lower frequency.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The R9 M375 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, with memory clocked at 900 MHz and an effective data rate of 1800 Mbps. This yields a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The 550X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but the memory runs at 1750 MHz with an effective rate of 7 Gbps, delivering 112.0 GB/s. That is nearly four times the memory bandwidth, a decisive advantage for the 550X in bandwidth-sensitive workloads like high-resolution texturing and certain compute tasks.

The 550X also carries a rated TDP of 50 W, a dual-slot cooler, no external power connectors, and a suggested power supply of 250 W. The R9 M375 has no TDP listed in the database. The 550X is a compact card at 145 mm or 5.7 inches in length. It also offers a newer display output set: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The R9 M375 has no display outputs recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The OpenCL test is the largest gap between the two. The R9 M375 scores 10457, the 550X scores 8866. That is a 17.9 percent delta in favor of the older card. For context, the R9 M375's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M at 10043 (0.3 percent slower), the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M at 10013 (0.6 percent slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M at 9959 (1.1 percent slower). The only rival listed that beats it is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A at 10273, which is 2 percent faster. The 550X sits among different company: its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, scores 8863, a 0.6 percent gap. The AMD Radeon R9 M265X scores 8851, 0.8 percent behind. Meanwhile, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 scores 9022, 1.2 percent ahead, and the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition scores 9037, 1.3 percent ahead of the 550X.

The Vulkan test narrows the gap. The R9 M375 scores 9682 against the 550X's 8970, a 7.9 percent advantage. Both scores are lower than their respective OpenCL results, but the R9 M375's lead shrinks from 17.9 percent to 7.9 percent. This suggests the newer architecture of the 550X handles Vulkan relatively better than it handles OpenCL, though it still trails.

The average benchmark score consolidates the picture. The R9 M375 averages 10070 across all recorded tests, while the 550X averages 8918. The R9 M375's nearest rivals by average score are all within 2 percent, which places it in a tightly contested cluster. The 550X's rivals are similarly close, with the spread from 8851 to 9037. Neither card dominates its immediate competition, but the R9 M375 sits slightly higher in the overall distribution.

The Verdict

The data directs different users to different cards. For compute throughput in OpenCL and Vulkan, the AMD Radeon R9 M375 is the clear pick. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score, and ranks at the 48th percentile versus the 550X's 45th. If the workload is purely about raw GFLOPS and benchmark scores, the R9 M375 delivers more.

For users who value modern features, the AMD Radeon 550X has the edge. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0) instead of 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.3 instead of 1.2.170, and it carries a massive memory bandwidth advantage at 112.0 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. It also runs on a 14 nm process with a higher transistor density, which typically translates to better power efficiency, though the database does not list a TDP for the R9 M375 to compare directly.

The 550X also offers a modern display output set with HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a, while the R9 M375 has no recorded outputs. For a system builder pairing a card with a newer monitor or VR headset, the 550X is the more future-proof option despite its lower compute scores.

The verdict is not a clean sweep for either. The R9 M375 wins on measured performance in the database. The 550X wins on architectural features, memory bandwidth, and connectivity. The choice depends on which of those factors the user weights more heavily.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R9 M375 has an average benchmark score of 10070, while the AMD Radeon 550X scores 8918. The R9 M375 also ranks at the 48th percentile among all GPUs, compared to the 550X's 45th percentile.

Q: How much faster is the R9 M375 in OpenCL?

A: The R9 M375 scores 10457 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 17.9 percent higher than the 550X's 8866.

Q: Does the 550X have any advantage in memory performance?

A: Yes. The 550X uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. The R9 M375 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same bus width but only achieves 28.80 GB/s.

Q: What API levels does each card support?

A: The R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The R9 M375 has 640 shading units, while the 550X has 512. The R9 M375 also has 40 TMUs versus 32 on the 550X, though both have 16 ROPs.

Q: Is the 550X a larger card?

A: The 550X measures 145 mm or 5.7 inches in length and is a dual-slot design with no power connectors. The R9 M375 has no dimensions listed in the database.