AMD Radeon 740M vs AMD Radeon RX 550X Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the AMD Radeon 740M compare to the AMD Radeon RX 550X in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The Radeon 740M scores 10,172 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Radeon RX 550X scores 9,662. This gives the 740M a 5.3% advantage in that test.

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 740M is clearly ahead, scoring 15,568 versus the RX 550X's 11,299. That is a 37.8% margin, the largest difference between the two in any recorded benchmark.

Q: What is the architectural generation of each GPU?

A: The Radeon 740M is built on RDNA 3.0 and belongs to the Navi III IGP (Phoenix) generation, while the Radeon RX 550X uses GCN 4.0 and is part of the Polaris (RX 500X) generation.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The Radeon 740M contains 20,900 million transistors, whereas the Radeon RX 550X has 2,200 million. However, the RX 550X has a larger memory bus (128 bit versus system shared) and dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two GPUs?

A: The Radeon 740M is listed as Active production, while the Radeon RX 550X is marked End-of-life. The 740M was released later (2024-01-30) compared to the RX 550X (2018-12-15).

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Radeon 740M has an average benchmark score of 12,870, while the RX 550X averages 10,481. The 740M sits at the 53rd percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 550X is at the 49th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The AMD Radeon 740M is an integrated graphics processor based on the Phoenix2 chip, built on TSMC's 4 nm process. It uses the RDNA 3.0 architecture and belongs to the Navi III IGP generation. The Radeon RX 550X, in contrast, is a discrete graphics card built on the Lexa chip using GCN 4.0, fabricated by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process, and belongs to the Polaris generation.

The process node difference is stark: 4 nm versus 14 nm. This directly impacts transistor density, with the 740M achieving 152.6 million transistors per square millimeter versus 21.4 million for the RX 550X. The 740M packs 20,900 million transistors into a 137 mm² die, while the RX 550X fits 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die. The 740M's die is larger despite being an integrated part, reflecting the density advantage of the newer node.

The 740M features 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). It also includes 4 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the RX 550X. The RX 550X doubles the shading units to 512, has 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, but lacks ray tracing support entirely. Neither GPU includes tensor cores.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The 740M has a base clock of 800 MHz and boosts to 2800 MHz. The RX 550X runs at a base of 1100 MHz and boosts to 1183 MHz. Despite the RX 550X's higher base clock, the 740M's much higher boost clock drives its superior compute throughput. The 740M delivers 2.867 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the RX 550X delivers 1,211.4 GFLOPS. Both maintain a 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio.

Memory architecture is a major divergence. The 740M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth described as system dependent. The RX 550X has 4 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128 bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth and running at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The 740M's pixel rate is 22.40 GPixel/s versus 18.93 GPixel/s for the RX 550X, and its texture rate is 44.80 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s.

Power characteristics also differ. The 740M has a TDP of 45 W and is an IGP with no power connectors. The RX 550X has a 50 W TDP, is a dual-slot card with no power connectors, and carries a suggested PSU of 250 W. The 740M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the RX 550X uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the 740M, while the RX 550X offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 550X is 145 mm long (5.7 inches).

API support shows the 740M's newer architecture: it supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 550X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall victory for the AMD Radeon 740M, which wins both head-to-head benchmarks. The most decisive result comes from Geekbench Vulkan, where the 740M scores 15,568 against the RX 550X's 11,299. That is a 37.8% advantage, a substantial gap that reflects the architectural leap from GCN 4.0 to RDNA 3.0.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the margin narrows considerably. The 740M scores 10,172, while the RX 550X trails at 9,662, giving the 740M a 5.3% lead. While still a win, this smaller delta suggests that compute workloads in OpenCL do not fully leverage the 740M's newer feature set, or that the RX 550X's dedicated memory helps close the gap in certain tasks.

Looking at the broader context from the database, the 740M's average benchmark score of 12,870 puts it in the company of the AMD FirePro W5100 (12,847, a 0.2% difference) and the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (12,831, a 0.3% difference). It sits just ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12,830, 0.3% difference) and slightly behind the AMD Radeon RX 580 (12,928, a -0.4% difference). The RX 550X, with an average of 10,481, is closest to the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10,400, 0.8% difference) and the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (10,582, a -1% difference). It also sits near the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362, 1.2% difference) and the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (10,629, a -1.4% difference).

These rival placements illustrate that the 740M operates in a higher performance tier than the RX 550X. The 740M's percentile rank of 53 versus 49 for the RX 550X further confirms this positioning. The average score gap of 2,389 points between the two is meaningful, driven largely by the Vulkan result.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD Radeon 740M and the AMD Radeon RX 550X:

• Chip: Phoenix2 versus Lexa
• Architecture: RDNA 3.0 versus GCN 4.0
• Generation: Navi III IGP (Phoenix) versus Polaris (RX 500X)
• Process node: 4 nm versus 14 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus GlobalFoundries
• Transistors: 20,900 million versus 2,200 million
• Die size: 137 mm² versus 103 mm²
• Transistor density: 152.6M / mm² versus 21.4M / mm²
• Base clock: 800 MHz versus 1100 MHz
• Boost clock: 2800 MHz versus 1183 MHz
• Memory clock: System Shared versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: System Shared versus 4 GB
• Memory type: System Shared versus GDDR5
• Memory bus width: System Shared versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: System Dependent versus 96.00 GB/s
• Shading units: 256 versus 512
• TMUs: 16 versus 32
• ROPs: 8 versus 16
• Ray tracing cores: 4 versus null
• Pixel rate: 22.40 GPixel/s versus 18.93 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 44.80 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 2.867 TFLOPS versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 2.867 TFLOPS (1:1) versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 45 W versus 50 W
• Slot width: IGP versus Dual-slot
• Suggested PSU: null versus 250 W
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display outputs: Motherboard Dependent versus 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
• Dimensions (length): null versus 145 mm (5.7 inches)
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) versus 12 (12_0)
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.3
• Production status: Active versus End-of-life
• Release date: 2024-01-30 versus 2018-12-15
• Predecessor: Navi II IGP versus Polaris
• Successor: Navi III IGP versus Vega
• Geekbench OpenCL score: 10,172 versus 9,662
• Geekbench Vulkan score: 15,568 versus 11,299
• Percentile vs all GPUs: 53 versus 49
• Average benchmark score: 12,870 versus 10,481

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 740M is the clear winner in raw compute benchmarks, taking both recorded tests. Its 37.8% Vulkan advantage is the standout result, indicating that modern API workloads, which can leverage RDNA 3.0's feature set including ray tracing, run far better on this architecture. The 740M also wins OpenCL by 5.3%, showing consistent superiority across API types. The 740M's 2.867 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, along with its higher pixel and texture rates, makes it the stronger choice for compute-heavy tasks and modern gaming workloads that utilize DirectX 12 Ultimate features.

The 740M's ray tracing cores provide a capability the RX 550X cannot match. Any workload that benefits from hardware-accelerated ray tracing will run exclusively on the 740M. The 740M's active production status and newer release date also mean it will receive ongoing driver support and appears in current systems as an integrated solution.

The AMD Radeon RX 550X does have advantages in specific areas, though they do not translate into benchmark wins. Its 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs are double the 740M's counts. The dedicated 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable, low-latency access that does not depend on system memory configuration. The RX 550X's discrete card form factor, with its 145 mm length and dual-slot design, offers its own display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0b, DisplayPort 1.4a) rather than relying on motherboard outputs. Its lower base clock advantage (1100 MHz versus 800 MHz) suggests it may handle sustained loads at lower frequencies more consistently, though the 740M's boost clock far exceeds it.

For users with older systems or those needing a dedicated card for legacy compatibility, the RX 550X's GCN 4.0 architecture and PCIe 3.0 support may be sufficient. However, the benchmark data shows that in every measured test, the 740M outperforms the RX 550X. The RX 550X is end-of-life, so its utility is limited to existing deployments or scenarios where a discrete card with fixed memory is required.

In practical terms, the 740M wins for modern integrated graphics use cases, especially in Vulkan-based workloads and any application that can exploit its ray tracing hardware. The RX 550X retains relevance only in legacy systems or where dedicated memory and a fixed bus configuration are mandatory. The database's win tally of 2-0 in favor of the 740M reflects these results accurately.