AMD Radeon 890M vs AMD Radeon RX 550 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon 890M wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark against the AMD Radeon RX 550. Across three tests, the 890M holds a commanding lead, with deltas ranging from roughly 70% to nearly 79%. The RX 550 records zero wins in direct comparisons.

The largest margin appears in the 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 test. The RX 550 scores 127, while the 890M reaches 590, a delta of -78.5% from the 890M's perspective. That means the 890M is more than four and a half times faster in this modern DirectX 12 workload. Such a gap indicates a generational leap rather than a modest improvement.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 550 posts 11,063, while the 890M delivers 37,254. The delta here is -70.3%, meaning the 890M outperforms the RX 550 by a factor of roughly 3.4x. OpenCL is a compute-oriented API, and the 890M's advantage reflects its much larger shader array and modern architecture.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story. The RX 550 scores 12,270, while the 890M reaches 40,808, a delta of -69.9%. Vulkan is a low-level graphics API that scales well with hardware capability, and the 890M's near 3.3x advantage highlights its superior throughput in real-world gaming scenarios.

Beyond these head-to-head tests, the aggregate benchmark averages reinforce the trend. The RX 550 holds an average benchmark score of 11,075 across all recorded tests, while the 890M averages 9,210. Interestingly, the RX 550's average is higher, but this is because the 890M's benchmark pool includes several PassMark tests with very low scores (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, and G2D), which drag its average down. The 890M's PassMark G3D score of 8,076 and GPU compute score of 4,157 show it is substantially stronger in modern workloads, while its older DirectX tests (DirectX 9 at 97, DirectX 10 at 33, DirectX 11 at 73, DirectX 12 at 37) reflect driver or API-specific quirks rather than raw capability.

When placed against the wider GPU landscape, the two parts sit near each other in percentile terms. The RX 550 ranks at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the 890M sits at the 45th percentile. The RX 550's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (average score 11,088, delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (same score and delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (average 11,047, delta +0.3%), and the AMD FirePro W4300 (average 11,225, delta -1.3%). The 890M's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Vega 8 (average 9,221, delta -0.1%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 (average 9,273, delta -0.7%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 (average 9,294, delta -0.9%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M (average 9,302, delta -1%). These figures show the RX 550 clustering with workstation-class GPUs in aggregate scores, while the 890M groups with older mid-range discrete cards.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon 890M wins all three recorded head-to-head tests: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, Geekbench OpenCL, and Geekbench Vulkan. The RX 550 records zero wins.

Q: How much faster is the 890M in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12?

A: The 890M scores 590 versus the RX 550's 127, a delta of -78.5%, meaning the 890M is roughly 4.6 times faster in this test.

Q: What is the aggregate benchmark score difference?

A: The RX 550 averages 11,075, while the 890M averages 9,210. However, the 890M's pool includes several older PassMark tests (DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12) where it scores very low (97, 33, 73, and 37 respectively), which lower its average. In the three modern head-to-head tests, the 890M is far ahead.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The RX 550 ranks at the 50th percentile, while the 890M ranks at the 45th percentile. Despite the 890M's head-to-head dominance, its overall percentile is slightly lower due to the inclusion of low-scoring PassMark legacy tests.

Q: What is the 890M's nearest rival in the database?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 8, with an average score of 9,221 and a delta of -0.1%. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is close at 9,273 (-0.7%), followed by the GTX 465 at 9,294 (-0.9%) and GTX 850M at 9,302 (-1%).

Q: Does the RX 550 have any benchmark where it beats the 890M?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the 890M winning all three tests. The RX 550's wins are zero in the head-to-head table.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural eras. The RX 550 is built on GCN 4.0, using the Lexa chip, and belongs to the Polaris (RX 500) generation. It uses a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries, with 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 21.4 million per mm². The 890M, in contrast, uses RDNA 3.5, built on the Strix Point chip, and belongs to the Navi III IGP (Strix Point Mobile) generation. It uses a 4 nm process from TSMC, packing 34,000 million transistors onto a 233 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 145.9 million per mm². That is nearly 7 times higher density, reflecting the 890M's far more advanced process node.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The 890M doubles those counts: 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The 890M also features 16 ray tracing cores, a capability entirely absent from the RX 550. Neither part has tensor cores.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The RX 550 runs at a base of 1100 MHz and a boost of 1183 MHz, with memory at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The 890M has a base of just 400 MHz but boosts to 2900 MHz, a much higher peak clock. Its memory is system-shared, so no dedicated memory clock is listed.

Memory configuration is a fundamental split. The RX 550 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The 890M uses system-shared memory, with a bus width and bandwidth described as "System Shared" and "System Dependent" respectively. This means the 890M's memory performance depends entirely on the host system's RAM, while the RX 550 has dedicated VRAM.

The resulting throughput figures are stark. The RX 550 achieves 18.93 GPixel/s pixel rate, 37.86 GTexel/s texture rate, and 1,211.4 GFLOPS of FP32 (and FP16 at 1:1). The 890M reaches 92.80 GPixel/s, 185.6 GTexel/s, and 5.939 TFLOPS of FP32 (and FP16 at 1:1). That is roughly 5 times the pixel rate, 5 times the texture rate, and nearly 5 times the FP32 compute.

API support also differs. The RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The 890M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, adding newer DirectX feature levels and a higher Vulkan version.

Power and physical characteristics are nearly opposite. The RX 550 has a 50 W TDP, is dual-slot, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. It measures 145 mm (5.7 inches) in length. The 890M has a 15 W TDP, is an IGP (integrated graphics processor), requires no power connectors, and has no suggested PSU listed. It has no physical dimensions since it is embedded on a mobile processor die.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear verdict: the AMD Radeon 890M is the superior GPU for modern workloads. Every head-to-head benchmark shows it winning by massive margins, from 69.9% to 78.5%. Its raw compute throughput is nearly 5 times that of the RX 550, and it adds ray tracing support that the RX 550 lacks entirely.

The RX 550 is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 11,075 is higher than the 890M's 9,210, and it ranks at the 50th percentile versus the 890M's 45th. This is driven by the RX 550's consistent performance across a wider range of tests, including older DirectX APIs where the 890M scores very poorly (DirectX 9 at 97, DirectX 10 at 33, DirectX 11 at 73, DirectX 12 at 37). For legacy software or compute workloads that favor GCN architecture, the RX 550's dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory and stable drivers might still hold value.

However, for anyone running contemporary games, Vulkan or OpenCL compute tasks, or DirectX 12 Ultimate content, the 890M is the clear choice. Its 5.939 TFLOPS of FP32, 16 ray tracing cores, and 92.80 GPixel/s pixel rate put it in a different performance class. The fact that it does all this at 15 W TDP, versus the RX 550's 50 W, is remarkable.

The production status reinforces the verdict. The RX 550 is end-of-life, released on 2017-04-19, with a successor named Vega. The 890M is active, released on 2024-07-14, with no successor listed. Choosing the RX 550 means relying on aging hardware with no ongoing support. Choosing the 890M means current architecture with future headroom.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 550 | AMD Radeon 890M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | RDNA 3.5 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 4 nm |

| Foundry | GlobalFoundries | TSMC |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 34,000 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 233 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 145.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz | 400 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1183 MHz | 2900 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | System Shared |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | System Shared |

| Memory Bus | 128 bit | System Shared |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | System Dependent |

| Shading Units | 512 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 32 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| RT Cores | None | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.93 GPixel/s | 92.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 37.86 GTexel/s | 185.6 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,211.4 GFLOPS | 5.939 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | 5.939 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 15 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |

| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2017-04-19 | 2024-07-14 |

| Predecessor | Arctic Islands | Navi II IGP |

| Successor | Vega | Not listed |

| Launch MSRP | 79 USD | Not listed |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 890M wins everywhere that matters for modern use. In the three head-to-head benchmarks, it dominates: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (590 vs 127), Geekbench OpenCL (37,254 vs 11,063), and Geekbench Vulkan (40,808 vs 12,270). Its FP32 throughput of 5.939 TFLOPS dwarfs the RX 550's 1,211.4 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 92.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 185.6 GTexel/s are roughly 5 times higher. It has 16 ray tracing cores, which the RX 550 lacks. Its boost clock of 2900 MHz gives it a massive peak frequency advantage. Its 15 W TDP means it can operate in power-constrained mobile environments where the RX 550's 50 W would be impractical. Its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface doubles the bandwidth of the RX 550's PCIe 3.0 x8. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4 support future-proof it for upcoming software.

The AMD Radeon RX 550 wins in a narrower set of circumstances. Its average benchmark score of 11,075 is higher than the 890M's 9,210, a result driven by its consistent performance across a broad test suite, including legacy DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 PassMark tests. Its 50th percentile ranking beats the 890M's 45th. Its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth provides predictable, fixed performance independent of system RAM, unlike the 890M's system-shared memory. Its 128-bit bus and 1750 MHz memory clock offer a stable baseline. Its dual-slot form factor and 145 mm length make it suitable for discrete installation in a desktop, whereas the 890M is an IGP with no physical dimensions listed. Its 1100 MHz base clock is higher than the 890M's 400 MHz base, which may help in sustained low-load scenarios. Its launch MSRP of 79 USD (stated once) reflects its historical positioning as a low-cost entry point, though the 890M has no MSRP listed since it ships as part of a processor.

For legacy software, particularly older DirectX titles, the RX 550's higher aggregate score suggests it may handle those workloads with fewer driver or API issues. The 890M's PassMark scores in DirectX 9 (97), DirectX 10 (33), DirectX 11 (73), and DirectX 12 (37) are drastically lower than its modern test scores, indicating potential compatibility problems with older APIs. The RX 550, with its 12_0 DirectX support and mature GCN drivers, is likely more reliable for such applications.

In summary, the 890M is the winner for gaming, compute, and any modern workload. The RX 550 holds a niche for legacy API compatibility and predictable discrete memory performance. The data leaves no room for ambiguity in the head-to-head results: the 890M is the superior part.