AMD Radeon HD 8950M vs AMD Radeon RX 550 Comparison

AMD Radeon HD 8950M vs AMD Radeon RX 550: two end-of-life GPUs from different eras of AMD’s mobile and desktop lineup. The HD 8950M is a high-end mobile part from 2013, built for large laptops and workstations. The RX 550 is a low-profile desktop card from 2017, aimed at compact builds and light gaming. The benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, but the details reveal why each card still has a place depending on the workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results in the database cover two compute-oriented tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the AMD Radeon HD 8950M comes out ahead.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the HD 8950M scores 13772, while the RX 550 scores 11063. That is a delta of 24.5% in favor of the older mobile card. This is a substantial gap, driven by the HD 8950M’s higher raw shader count and its particular balance of compute units. The RX 550’s newer architecture does not compensate for having fewer shading units in this test.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap narrows significantly. The HD 8950M scores 12979, and the RX 550 scores 12270. The delta here is 5.8%, still a win for the HD 8950M, but much closer. Vulkan is a lower-level API, and the RX 550’s GCN 4.0 architecture handles it more efficiently relative to its hardware resources than it does OpenCL. Still, the HD 8950M holds the lead in both recorded tests.

The database records 2 wins for the HD 8950M and 0 for the RX 550 in direct comparisons. The RX 550 does not win a single head-to-head test in the data set.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the HD 8950M sits at 13376, which places it in the 54th percentile of all GPUs tracked. The RX 550 has an average score of 11075, landing in the 50th percentile. That percentile difference is small, but the raw score gap is about 20.8% in favor of the HD 8950M when comparing their overall averages.

The nearest rivals in the database help contextualize these numbers. The HD 8950M’s closest competitors are the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (avg 13356, delta 0.2%), the AMD FirePro M6100 (avg 13354, delta 0.2%), and the AMD Radeon Pro 555 (avg 13407, delta -0.2%). This means the HD 8950M is essentially neck-and-neck with much newer mobile GPUs in aggregate compute performance. The RX 550, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (avg 11047, delta 0.3%) and the AMD FirePro W4300 (avg 11225, delta -1.3%). It is competitive with those cards, but they are all in a lower performance tier than the HD 8950M’s peers.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and are built on different process nodes. The HD 8950M uses the Saturn chip with GCN 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The RX 550 uses the Lexa chip with GCN 4.0 architecture, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries.

The transistor counts are similar: the HD 8950M has 2,080 million transistors on a die size of 160 mm², giving a transistor density of 13.0M per mm². The RX 550 has 2,200 million transistors on a much smaller 103 mm² die, resulting in 21.4M per mm². The newer process node allows the RX 550 to pack slightly more transistors into less than two-thirds of the silicon area, which explains its much lower power draw.

The compute configuration differs significantly. The HD 8950M packs 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and also 16 ROPs. The HD 8950M has 50% more shading units and 50% more TMUs, which directly explains its advantage in OpenCL workloads that scale with shader count.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The HD 8950M has no base or boost clock listed in the database, but its memory runs at 1375 MHz, or 5.5 Gbps effective. The RX 550 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1183 MHz, with memory at 1750 MHz, or 7 Gbps effective. The RX 550’s memory is significantly faster, which shows up in its higher memory bandwidth: 112.0 GB/s versus 88.00 GB/s for the HD 8950M.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the different designs. The HD 8950M pushes 17.20 GPixel/s and 51.60 GTexel/s. The RX 550 outputs 18.93 GPixel/s and 37.86 GTexel/s. The RX 550 has a slight edge in pixel fill due to its higher clocks, but the HD 8950M dominates texture fill rate because of its extra TMUs.

FP32 compute is another clear separator. The HD 8950M delivers 1.651 TFLOPS, while the RX 550 delivers 1,211.4 GFLOPS (which is 1.2114 TFLOPS). The HD 8950M is about 36% ahead in raw single-precision floating-point throughput. The RX 550 does list FP16 performance at 1,211.4 GFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, meaning it can do FP16 at the same rate as FP32, but the HD 8950M has no FP16 figure recorded.

The power envelope is where the RX 550 wins decisively. The HD 8950M is rated at 100 W TDP and comes as an MXM module, which is a laptop form factor. The RX 550 is rated at 50 W TDP, is a dual-slot desktop card, requires no power connectors, and only needs a 250 W suggested PSU. The RX 550 is also much shorter at 145 mm (5.7 inches) in length, making it a true low-profile candidate for small cases.

The API support is similar in DirectX (both support 12_0) and OpenGL (both 4.6), but the RX 550 supports Vulkan 1.3 while the HD 8950M tops out at Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 550 also lists specific display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a), while the HD 8950M’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent, which is expected for a mobile part.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD Radeon HD 8950M as the faster card in compute-oriented benchmarks. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score, and sits in a higher percentile of all GPUs. If the workload is OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the HD 8950M is the better choice by a meaningful margin, especially in OpenCL where it is 24.5% ahead.

However, the RX 550 is not without its case. It uses half the power (50 W versus 100 W), runs on a newer and denser process node, has faster memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s versus 88.00 GB/s), and fits in a standard dual-slot desktop form factor with no external power needed. For a compact desktop build where power draw and physical size matter, the RX 550 is the sensible pick. The HD 8950M is an MXM module, which means it is tied to a specific laptop or workstation chassis and is not a drop-in desktop solution.

The verdict from the recorded data: choose the HD 8950M for maximum compute performance in a mobile form factor, provided the host system can cool and power a 100 W module. Choose the RX 550 for a low-power, small-footprint desktop GPU that still handles Vulkan and OpenCL tasks with respectable results, even if it trails the HD 8950M by 5.8% to 24.5% depending on the test.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the fields where the two GPUs differ based on the database record.

| Specification | AMD Radeon HD 8950M | AMD Radeon RX 550 |

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

| Chip | Saturn | Lexa |

| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Generation | Solar System (HD 8900M) | Polaris (RX 500) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 2,080 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.0M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1100 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1183 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 88.00 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 512 |

| TMUs | 48 | 32 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 17.20 GPixel/s | 18.93 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 51.60 GTexel/s | 37.86 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.651 TFLOPS | 1,211.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Vulkan API | 1.2.170 | 1.3 |

| Length | Not listed | 145 mm (5.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2013-05-13 | 2017-04-19 |

| Predecessor | London | Arctic Islands |

| Successor | Gem System | Vega |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 79 USD |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8950M has an average benchmark score of 13376, compared to 11075 for the AMD Radeon RX 550.

Q: How much faster is the HD 8950M in OpenCL?

A: The HD 8950M scores 13772 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 11063 for the RX 550, a delta of 24.5% in favor of the HD 8950M.

Q: Does the RX 550 win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. The database records 2 wins for the HD 8950M and 0 wins for the RX 550 across the two shared tests.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The HD 8950M has a TDP of 100 W, while the RX 550 has a TDP of 50 W. The RX 550 also requires no power connectors and only a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The HD 8950M has 768 shading units, while the RX 550 has 512 shading units.

Q: How does the RX 550 compare to its nearest rival in the database?

A: The RX 550’s average score of 11075 is 0.3% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (avg 11047) and 1.3% lower than the AMD FirePro W4300 (avg 11225).

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon HD 8950M wins in:

• OpenCL compute performance, where it leads by 24.5%.
• Vulkan compute performance, where it leads by 5.8%.
• Raw shader throughput, with 768 shading units versus 512.
• Texture fill rate, at 51.60 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s.
• FP32 compute, at 1.651 TFLOPS versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS.
• Overall average benchmark score, at 13376 versus 11075.
• Percentile ranking, sitting at the 54th percentile versus the RX 550’s 50th.

AMD Radeon RX 550 wins in:

• Power efficiency, with a 50 W TDP versus 100 W.
• Memory bandwidth, at 112.0 GB/s versus 88.00 GB/s.
• Pixel fill rate, at 18.93 GPixel/s versus 17.20 GPixel/s.
• Transistor density, at 21.4M per mm² versus 13.0M per mm², thanks to the 14 nm process.
• Physical footprint, as a 145 mm dual-slot card versus an MXM module.
• API version support, with Vulkan 1.3 versus Vulkan 1.2.170.
• Ease of installation, with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU.