AMD Radeon 550X vs AMD Radeon RX 550 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon RX 550 compare to the AMD Radeon 550X in overall benchmark scores?

A: The RX 550 holds a decisive lead in the database. Its average benchmark score is 11,075, while the 550X averages 8,918. The RX 550 also sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, five points higher than the 550X's 45th percentile.

Q: Which card wins in the head-to-head tests, and by how much?

A: The RX 550 wins both recorded head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 11,063 against the 550X's 8,866, a margin of 24.8%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens to 36.8%, with scores of 12,270 versus 8,970.

Q: Are these two cards built on the same underlying hardware?

A: Yes, both use the Lexa chip, GCN 4.0 architecture, a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, 2,200 million transistors, and a 103 mm² die size. Their memory subsystems are also identical: 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two?

A: The RX 550 has a higher base clock at 1100 MHz versus 1082 MHz on the 550X. However, the 550X boosts higher, reaching 1218 MHz compared to the RX 550's 1183 MHz. Memory clocks are identical at 1750 MHz, or 7 Gbps effective.

Q: Do the cards differ in power requirements or physical design?

A: No. Both are rated at 50 W TDP, are dual-slot cards with no power connectors, and recommend a 250 W power supply. They share the same 145 mm length and the same display outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Q: Which card is newer, and what does that mean for its performance profile?

A: The 550X was released on 2019-03-26, nearly two years after the RX 550's 2017-04-19 launch. Despite being newer, the 550X does not outperform the RX 550 in the measured benchmarks; the RX 550 remains faster in both OpenCL and Vulkan tests.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 550 wins both recorded head-to-head tests. There is no test in the database where the AMD Radeon 550X comes out ahead. The RX 550's advantage is substantial, and it grows depending on the API used. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 550 leads by 24.8%, a solid margin that reflects a meaningful difference in compute throughput. In Geekbench Vulkan, the RX 550 stretches its lead to 36.8%, an even more pronounced gap that suggests the RX 550's driver and hardware combination handles Vulkan workloads particularly well.

The 550X, by contrast, posts lower raw scores in both APIs. Its OpenCL result of 8,866 is nearly 2,200 points behind the RX 550. Its Vulkan score of 8,970 is roughly 3,300 points lower. The 550X does have a higher boost clock, but the measured results show that this does not translate into a performance win. For any user choosing between these two on benchmark performance alone, the RX 550 is the clear pick. The 550X's only distinction is its later release date, but that does not compensate for the performance deficit.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture: GCN 4.0, built on the Lexa chip, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The transistor count is identical at 2,200 million, and the die size is the same 103 mm². The transistor density, calculated at 21.4M per mm², is also identical. This means the two GPUs are not just similar, they are architecturally the same silicon, differentiated primarily by clock tuning and firmware.

The compute configuration is also identical: 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operations units. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both support DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The FP16 and FP32 throughput are both listed as 1:1 ratios, meaning there is no half-rate or quarter-rate FP16 penalty. The pixel and texture rates differ slightly due to clock speeds: the RX 550 delivers 18.93 GPixel/s and 37.86 GTexel/s, while the 550X delivers 19.49 GPixel/s and 38.98 GTexel/s.

The only architectural distinction lies in the generation label: the RX 550 is part of the Polaris (RX 500) generation, while the 550X is part of the Polaris (RX 500X) refresh. The 550X's predecessor is listed as Polaris, whereas the RX 550's predecessor is Arctic Islands. Both list Vega as their successor. In practice, the 550X is a clock-adjusted variant of the same Lexa die, not a new design.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for the two cards are nearly identical, but there are a few notable differences beyond the clocks. The RX 550 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1183 MHz. The 550X has a lower base clock of 1082 MHz but a higher boost clock of 1218 MHz. This means the 550X spends more of its time at higher frequencies under load, yet the benchmark results do not reflect an advantage.

The calculated throughput figures follow the boost clocks. The RX 550's FP32 performance is 1,211.4 GFLOPS, while the 550X reaches 1,247.2 GFLOPS. Pixel rate is 18.93 GPixel/s for the RX 550 and 19.49 GPixel/s for the 550X. Texture rate is 37.86 GTexel/s versus 38.98 GTexel/s. In every throughput metric, the 550X has a nominal edge, but the measured benchmark scores tell a different story.

The release dates differ: the RX 550 launched on 2017-04-19, and the 550X launched on 2019-03-26. The RX 550 has a recorded launch MSRP of 79 USD, while the 550X has no launch MSRP listed. Both cards are marked end-of-life. Memory, bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), TDP, slot width, power connectors, suggested PSU, dimensions, and display outputs are all identical between the two.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head comparisons between the AMD Radeon RX 550 and the AMD Radeon 550X. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the RX 550 scores 11,063 and the 550X scores 8,866. The RX 550 wins by 24.8%. This is a significant margin, placing the RX 550 comfortably ahead in general-purpose compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. The second test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the RX 550 scores 12,270 and the 550X scores 8,970. The RX 550 wins by 36.8%, an even larger gap. Vulkan is often more sensitive to driver efficiency and memory access patterns, and the RX 550 clearly benefits in this scenario.

To contextualize these scores, the RX 550's average benchmark score of 11,075 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q, both of which average 11,088. It is also 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047) and 1.3% behind the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225). These rival deltas are all within a couple of percentage points, meaning the RX 550 sits in a tightly contested performance tier despite its modest specifications.

The 550X, with an average score of 8,918, is 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (8,863) and 0.8% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (8,851). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 (9,022) by 1.2% and the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (9,037) by 1.3%. The 550X's closest rivals are all older or lower-tier parts, and its position in the 45th percentile reflects a more modest standing in the overall GPU landscape.

The head-to-head results are consistent: the RX 550 is faster in both APIs, and the margin grows from OpenCL to Vulkan. The 550X's higher boost clock and higher theoretical FP32 throughput do not translate into real-world wins. In the recorded data, the RX 550 wins both tests, and the 550X has zero wins. For anyone comparing these two cards, the RX 550 is the stronger performer across the board.