AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT vs AMD Radeon RX 6550M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M is the clear benchmark victor in this pairing, taking both head-to-head tests. Its most decisive advantage comes in the Vulkan API, where it scores 51,071 against the Pro 5500 XT’s 39,601 — a commanding 29% lead. This is not a marginal gap; it represents a generational stride in API efficiency and raw compute throughput that the older RDNA 1.0 part cannot match.

In OpenCL, the RX 6550M wins again, but by a razor-thin margin: 41,991 versus 41,772, a 0.5% delta. That result is effectively a statistical tie, indicating that in pure compute workloads that scale across shading units, the Pro 5500 XT’s larger shader array (1,536 vs. 1,024) nearly neutralizes the RX 6550M’s clock-speed advantage. The Pro 5500 XT’s 8 GB memory buffer and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth also help it stay competitive in memory-bound OpenCL tasks, even though it ultimately comes up short.

The RX 6550M’s average benchmark score of 46,531 places it 1.9% ahead of the Pro 5500 XT’s 45,642. Both GPUs sit at the 86th percentile among all GPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier overall. However, the RX 6550M’s wins are concentrated where modern games and applications actually run: Vulkan. The Pro 5500 XT’s only unique benchmark result is a Metal score of 55,552 — a test the RX 6550M does not have — which reflects its macOS-oriented design but offers no cross-comparison value here.

For gaming and DirectX 12 Ultimate workloads, the RX 6550M is the only one of the two with hardware ray tracing (16 RT cores) and supports the full DirectX 12 Ultimate feature set (12_2). The Pro 5500 XT is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1), lacking RT cores entirely. Consequently, any workload leveraging ray tracing or the latest DirectX 12 Ultimate features will only run on the RX 6550M, making its 2-0 benchmark sweep more meaningful than the raw scores alone suggest.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different RDNA generations, and that distinction drives nearly every performance and feature gap. The RX 6550M is built on RDNA 2.0 using the Navi 24 chip, fabricated on TSMC’s 6 nm process. The Pro 5500 XT uses the older RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 14 chip on a 7 nm node. The process shrink allows the RX 6550M to pack 5,400 million transistors into just 107 mm², yielding a transistor density of 50.5M per mm². The Pro 5500 XT, by contrast, contains 6,400 million transistors across a much larger 158 mm² die, with a lower density of 40.5M per mm². This is a classic case of newer architecture achieving more with fewer, more efficiently laid-out resources.

Clock speeds tell the story of the RX 6550M’s aggressive tuning. Its base clock is 2000 MHz, boosting to 2840 MHz, with a game clock of 2560 MHz. The Pro 5500 XT runs far lower: 1187 MHz base and 1757 MHz boost. That 1083 MHz boost-clock advantage for the RX 6550M is enormous and explains how it achieves higher FP32 throughput (5.816 TFLOPS vs. 5.398 TFLOPS) despite having 512 fewer shading units. The Pro 5500 XT’s 1,536 shading units and 96 TMUs outnumber the RX 6550M’s 1,024 and 64, but they cannot overcome the clock deficit in most scenarios.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The RX 6550M uses 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, running at 18 Gbps effective for 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Pro 5500 XT offers 8 GB GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus at 14 Gbps effective, delivering 224.0 GB/s. The Pro 5500 XT thus has double the capacity and 55.6% more bandwidth, which matters in large-texture or compute-heavy scenes. However, the RX 6550M’s faster effective memory speed partially compensates in latency-sensitive workloads.

Feature support diverges sharply. The RX 6550M includes 16 dedicated ray-tracing cores, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), and carries a Vulkan 1.4 API rating. The Pro 5500 XT has no RT cores, is capped at DirectX 12 (12_1), and also lists Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Power draw differs accordingly: the RX 6550M is rated at 80 W TDP, while the Pro 5500 XT requires 125 W and a 300 W suggested PSU. The RX 6550M’s lower power envelope is notable given its higher performance in most tests, achieved on a 6 nm node versus the Pro 5500 XT’s 7 nm.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6550M is the superior GPU for modern, API-diverse workloads. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, offers hardware ray tracing, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, consumes less power (80 W vs. 125 W), and is built on a newer, denser process node. Its 29% Vulkan lead is decisive, and its 0.5% OpenCL edge, while narrow, still favors it.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT is not without merit. Its 8 GB memory capacity and 224.0 GB/s bandwidth are double the RX 6550M’s in both respects, and its 1,536 shading units make it competitive in OpenCL compute. For users on macOS (given its Metal benchmark of 55,552) or those needing larger framebuffers, the Pro 5500 XT remains relevant. But its end-of-life production status, lack of RT cores, and older RDNA 1.0 architecture put it at a structural disadvantage.

Choose the RX 6550M for gaming, ray tracing, or any workload that benefits from Vulkan or DirectX 12 Ultimate. Choose the Pro 5500 XT if you specifically need double the VRAM or are tied to an ecosystem that uses Metal. Otherwise, the RX 6550M’s benchmark wins and feature set make it the clear recommendation from this data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M averages 46,531, which is 1.9% higher than the Pro 5500 XT’s 45,642.

Q: How big is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The RX 6550M scores 51,071 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the Pro 5500 XT’s 39,601 by 29%.

Q: Does the Pro 5500 XT support ray tracing?

A: No. The Pro 5500 XT has no ray-tracing cores, while the RX 6550M has 16 RT cores.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Pro 5500 XT has 224.0 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the RX 6550M’s 144.0 GB/s, due to its 128-bit bus versus 64-bit.

Q: Are both GPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both sit at the 86th percentile among all GPUs, despite the RX 6550M’s higher average score.

Q: What is the OpenCL score difference?

A: The RX 6550M scores 41,991 versus the Pro 5500 XT’s 41,772, a 0.5% difference favoring the RX 6550M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Vulkan test is the single largest differentiator. The RX 6550M’s 51,071 versus 39,601 represents a 29% advantage, a gap large enough to classify these as different performance tiers in Vulkan-based titles. This result aligns with the RX 6550M’s newer RDNA 2.0 architecture and significantly higher boost clock of 2840 MHz versus 1757 MHz. The Pro 5500 XT’s older RDNA 1.0 design struggles to translate its extra shading units into Vulkan throughput, where driver efficiency and architectural features matter more than brute shader count.

The OpenCL result is a near dead heat. The RX 6550M’s 41,991 edges out the Pro 5500 XT’s 41,772 by just 0.5%. Here, the Pro 5500 XT’s 1,536 shading units and 96 TMUs almost offset the RX 6550M’s clock advantage. The Pro 5500 XT’s higher memory bandwidth (224.0 GB/s) likely helps in memory-heavy OpenCL kernels, narrowing the gap to a statistical tie. Still, the RX 6550M wins, and at lower power (80 W vs. 125 W).

The RX 6550M also holds a 2-0 record in head-to-head wins, with no benchmark where the Pro 5500 XT comes out ahead. The Pro 5500 XT’s only notable result is its Metal score of 55,552, which has no direct RX 6550M counterpart — but Metal is exclusive to Apple platforms, so it does not factor into cross-GPU comparisons on Windows or Linux.

In terms of aggregate performance, the RX 6550M’s average score of 46,531 places it between the NVIDIA RTX A1000 Mobile (47,743, 2.5% higher) and the Intel Arc A530M (46,614, 0.2% lower). The Pro 5500 XT, at 45,642, sits just below the Intel Arc A730M (45,592, 0.1% higher) and above the NVIDIA RTX 5090 Mobile (45,152, 1.1% lower). This places both GPUs in a tight mid-range band, but the RX 6550M consistently edges ahead in direct comparison.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6550M | AMD Radeon Pro 5500 XT |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | RDNA 1.0 |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 7 nm |

| Transistors | 5,400 million | 6,400 million |

| Die Size | 107 mm² | 158 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 50.5M / mm² | 40.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 1187 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2840 MHz | 1757 MHz |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 144.0 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 1536 |

| TMUs | 64 | 96 |

| RT Cores | 16 | None |

| FP32 Performance | 5.816 TFLOPS | 5.398 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 80 W | 125 W |

| Suggested PSU | None | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (12_1) |

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

| Release Date | 2023-01-03 | 2020-08-03 |