AMD Radeon Pro 450 vs AMD Radeon RX 550 Comparison

# AMD Radeon RX 550 vs AMD Radeon Pro 450

The AMD Radeon RX 550 and AMD Radeon Pro 450 are both GCN 4.0 parts built on GlobalFoundries' 14 nm process, but they target different segments: the RX 550 is a desktop Polaris card while the Pro 450 is a mobile workstation part. Across three shared benchmarks, the RX 550 wins all of them, with deltas ranging from 16.7% to 61.6%. The RX 550 posts an average benchmark score of 11075 against the Pro 450's 10804, placing them at the 50th and 49th percentiles of all GPUs, respectively. Despite the Pro 450's larger transistor count and higher shading unit count, the RX 550's higher clocks and memory bandwidth give it a decisive edge in every measured workload.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench Metal?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 scores 20838 versus the Pro 450's 12893, a 61.6% advantage. This is the largest delta between the two cards in any shared benchmark.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 550 has an average benchmark score of 11075, while the Pro 450 averages 10804. This places the RX 550 at the 50th percentile of all GPUs and the Pro 450 at the 49th percentile.

Q: Does the Pro 450 have more shading units?

A: Yes, the Pro 450 has 640 shading units compared to the RX 550's 512. However, this does not translate into higher performance, as the RX 550 wins all three head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RX 550 offers 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus the Pro 450's 81.28 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the RX 550 runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective).

Q: Which card has a higher TDP?

A: The RX 550 has a TDP of 50 W, while the Pro 450 is rated at 35 W. The Pro 450 is an MXM module, whereas the RX 550 is a dual-slot card with no power connectors.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life?

A: Yes, both GPUs have a production status of "End-of-life." The RX 550 was released on 2017-04-19 and the Pro 450 on 2016-10-29.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the GCN 4.0 architecture and are fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, but their silicon designs diverge significantly. The RX 550 uses the Lexa chip, measuring 103 mm² with 2,200 million transistors, giving a transistor density of 21.4M per mm². The Pro 450 uses the larger Baffin chip, which spans 123 mm² and packs 3,000 million transistors, resulting in a higher density of 24.4M per mm². Despite the Pro 450's larger die and 800 million additional transistors, the RX 550 achieves higher performance in every shared test.

The compute configurations differ notably. The Pro 450 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the Pro 450 a theoretical texture rate of 32.00 GTexel/s versus the RX 550's 37.86 GTexel/s, and a pixel rate of 12.80 GPixel/s versus 18.93 GPixel/s. The RX 550's FP32 output is 1,211.4 GFLOPS compared to the Pro 450's 1,024.0 GFLOPS, a 18.3% advantage that aligns with its benchmark wins.

Clock speeds are another differentiator. The RX 550 has a base clock of 1100 MHz and a boost clock of 1183 MHz, while the Pro 450 lists no base or boost clocks in its specifications. Memory clocks also favor the RX 550: 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). Both cards use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the RX 550's higher memory clock yields 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth versus 81.28 GB/s for the Pro 450.

The cards also differ in form factor and power delivery. The RX 550 is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 145 mm (5.7 inches) in length, with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Pro 450 is an MXM module with no listed dimensions or power connector requirements. The RX 550 offers display outputs of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the Pro 450's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent." Both share PCIe 3.0 x8 interfaces and identical API support: DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

The Verdict

For desktop users seeking raw compute performance, the AMD Radeon RX 550 is the clear choice. It wins all three head-to-head benchmarks with deltas of 61.6% in Geekbench Metal, 22.9% in Geekbench OpenCL, and 16.7% in Geekbench Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 11075 exceeds the Pro 450's 10804 by 2.5%, and it sits one percentile higher (50th vs 49th). The RX 550 also offers higher memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s vs 81.28 GB/s), superior pixel rate (18.93 GPixel/s vs 12.80 GPixel/s), and greater FP32 throughput (1,211.4 GFLOPS vs 1,024.0 GFLOPS). Its launch MSRP was 79 USD.

The Pro 450, however, has its place in mobile workstations. As an MXM module with a TDP of just 35 W (versus 50 W), it is designed for portable devices where power efficiency is paramount. It has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs—more than the RX 550's 512 and 32—and a larger die at 123 mm² with 3,000 million transistors. For applications that scale with shader count rather than clock speed, the Pro 450's architecture may be preferable, but the benchmark data shows the RX 550 outperforming it in all measured workloads.

Users should pick the RX 550 if they need the best performance per benchmark results, particularly in Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan scenarios. The Pro 450 is a viable option for those constrained to MXM form factors or requiring lower power draw, but the data indicates a clear performance deficit. Neither card is current—both are end-of-life—so the choice is largely academic for new builds.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 550 | AMD Radeon Pro 450 |

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

| Chip | Lexa | Baffin |

| Generation | Polaris (RX 500) | Radeon Pro Mac (400 Series) |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 3,000 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 24.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz | null |

| Boost Clock | 1183 MHz | null |

| Memory Clock | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 81.28 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 640 |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.93 GPixel/s | 12.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 37.86 GTexel/s | 32.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,211.4 GFLOPS | 1,024.0 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | 1,024.0 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | 35 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | null |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | null |

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

| Dimensions | 145 mm (5.7 inches) length | null |

| Release Date | 2017-04-19 | 2016-10-29 |

| Predecessor | Arctic Islands | null |

| Successor | Vega | null |

| Launch MSRP | 79 USD | null |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The RX 550 dominates all three shared benchmarks, with the largest gap appearing in Geekbench Metal. There, the RX 550 scores 20838 against the Pro 450's 12893, a 61.6% delta that reflects the RX 550's higher clock speeds and memory bandwidth. The Pro 450's 640 shading units cannot compensate for the RX 550's 1183 MHz boost clock and 112.0 GB/s bandwidth, which are critical for Metal's compute-heavy workloads.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 550 posts 11063 versus 9002 for the Pro 450, a 22.9% advantage. While the delta is smaller than in Metal, it still represents a decisive win. The RX 550's FP32 output of 1,211.4 GFLOPS versus 1,024.0 GFLOPS likely drives this result, as OpenCL workloads are heavily arithmetic-bound. The Pro 450's higher shading unit count (640 vs 512) provides some parallel throughput, but the RX 550's higher clocks and texture rate (37.86 GTexel/s vs 32.00 GTexel/s) tip the scales.

Geekbench Vulkan shows the closest contest: the RX 550 scores 12270 against 10518, a 16.7% delta. Vulkan's lower-level API can leverage the Pro 450's additional TMUs (40 vs 32), yet the RX 550 still prevails. The RX 550's pixel rate of 18.93 GPixel/s versus 12.80 GPixel/s suggests it has an edge in rasterization-bound tasks, which likely contributes to this outcome.

The overall record stands at 3 wins for the RX 550 and 0 for the Pro 450. The RX 550's average benchmark score of 11075 places it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (avg score 11088) and 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (avg score 11047). The Pro 450's average of 10804 puts it 0.4% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 (avg score 10761) and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX350 (avg score 10883). These rival comparisons reinforce the RX 550's slight overall edge, though both cards sit near the 50th percentile of all GPUs, indicating they are mid-range performers relative to the broader market.