AMD Radeon Pro 5500M vs AMD Radeon RX 550 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a decisive margin in favor of the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M across all three shared tests. In Geekbench Metal, the Pro 5500M scores 38,235 against the RX 550's 20,838, a lead of 83.5%. That is not a marginal gap; it places the two cards in different performance tiers entirely, with the Pro 5500M delivering nearly double the Metal compute throughput.

The gap widens further in OpenCL. The Pro 5500M posts 31,088 versus 11,063 for the RX 550, a delta of 181%. This triples the RX 550's output in raw compute workloads, reflecting the fundamental architectural gulf between the two. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: 35,134 against 12,270, a 186.3% advantage for the Pro 5500M. Across the board, the Pro 5500M wins all three head-to-head contests, with winsA recorded at 3 and winsB at 0.

Contextualizing these scores with the nearest rivals shows where each card sits in the broader market. The Pro 5500M's average benchmark score is 11,528, placing it 0.4% above the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (11,479) and 0.8% below the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (11,627). It also trails the GeForce GTX 1660 by 1.3% (11,680) but leads the GTX 780M by 2.4% (11,261). The RX 550's average score of 11,075 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q (11,088, a -0.1% delta) and the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (same score, same delta). It sits 0.3% above the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047) and 1.3% below the AMD FirePro W4300 (11,225).

The percentile rankings reinforce this picture. The Pro 5500M sits at the 51st percentile among all GPUs, while the RX 550 sits at the 50th. Despite the massive benchmark deltas between them, both hover near the median of the entire GPU distribution — a reminder that these are mid-range parts by contemporary standards. The Pro 5500M's 4.5% higher average score over the RX 550 (11,528 vs 11,075) is modest in aggregate terms, but the head-to-head deltas show that the Pro 5500M's advantage is concentrated in exactly the compute-heavy APIs that matter for professional workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from entirely different architectural generations. The Pro 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0, fabricated by TSMC on a 7 nm process. The RX 550 uses the Lexa chip on GCN 4.0, built by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. This process node gap — 7 nm versus 14 nm — is the single largest physical differentiator, directly enabling the Pro 5500M's higher transistor density of 40.5M per mm² versus the RX 550's 21.4M per mm².

Transistor counts tell a similar story. The Pro 5500M packs 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, while the RX 550 has 2,200 million on a 103 mm² die. The Pro 5500M uses nearly three times the transistor budget, and it does so on a die that is only 53% larger in area. That density advantage is the physical foundation for the performance gap seen in the benchmarks.

The compute resources scale accordingly. The Pro 5500M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs — exactly one-third of the Pro 5500M's shader count and TMU count, and half its ROP count. The Pro 5500M's FP32 throughput is 4.454 TFLOPS against the RX 550's 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1.2114 TFLOPS), a 3.7x difference in raw floating-point capability.

The FP16 story is even more revealing of architectural intent. The Pro 5500M delivers 8.909 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, meaning it halves FP32 throughput to double FP16 rate. The RX 550 delivers 1,211.4 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, meaning no FP16 acceleration at all. For any workload that can leverage packed math, the Pro 5500M effectively doubles its compute ceiling; the RX 550 cannot.

Memory subsystems diverge as well. The Pro 5500M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 550 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s. The Pro 5500M has four times the memory capacity and 71% more bandwidth. The RX 550's memory clock runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus the Pro 5500M's 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) — the faster per-pin data rate on the GDDR6 more than compensates for the lower base clock.

API support differs slightly. Both support DirectX 12, but the Pro 5500M is at 12_1 while the RX 550 is at 12_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan versions differ: the Pro 5500M supports 1.4, the RX 550 supports 1.3. The bus interface also differs, with the Pro 5500M on PCIe 4.0 x8 and the RX 550 on PCIe 3.0 x8.

Where Each One Wins

The Pro 5500M wins every benchmark where both cards have data. In Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, it leads by margins ranging from 83.5% to 186.3%. The largest advantage is in Vulkan (186.3%), followed closely by OpenCL (181%), with Metal showing the smallest — though still massive — lead at 83.5%. This pattern suggests the RDNA 1.0 architecture scales particularly well with modern compute APIs, while the older GCN 4.0 design struggles to extract comparable throughput from the same workloads.

There is no benchmark category in the shared data where the RX 550 wins. The winsA count of 3 against winsB of 0 is unambiguous. However, the RX 550 does have a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 127, which has no counterpart in the Pro 5500M's data set, so a direct comparison in that specific test is not possible from the available facts.

For use cases, the Pro 5500M is the clear choice for Metal-centric macOS workflows, OpenCL compute tasks, and Vulkan rendering. Its 8 GB memory capacity also positions it for larger textures and datasets, while the RX 550's 2 GB limit would quickly become a bottleneck. The RX 550, with its 50 W TDP versus the Pro 5500M's 85 W, is the more power-efficient option in absolute terms, and its 250 W suggested PSU makes it easier to slot into modest systems. The RX 550's dual-slot form factor and 145 mm length also make it a straightforward drop-in for standard desktop cases.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The Pro 5500M uses a 7 nm TSMC process; the RX 550 uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. Transistor counts are 6,400 million versus 2,200 million. Die sizes are 158 mm² versus 103 mm². Transistor densities are 40.5M per mm² versus 21.4M per mm².

Base clocks differ: 1000 MHz for the Pro 5500M versus 1100 MHz for the RX 550. Boost clocks: 1450 MHz versus 1183 MHz. Memory clocks: 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective). Memory size: 8 GB GDDR6 versus 2 GB GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus, but bandwidth is 192.0 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s.

Shading units: 1536 versus 512. TMUs: 96 versus 32. ROPs: 32 versus 16. Pixel rate: 46.40 GPixel/s versus 18.93 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 139.2 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s. FP32: 4.454 TFLOPS versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS. FP16: 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1).

TDP: 85 W versus 50 W. The Pro 5500M has no slot width specified; the RX 550 is dual-slot. Power connectors: none for either. The RX 550 lists a 250 W suggested PSU; the Pro 5500M lists none. Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x8 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs: the Pro 5500M is "Portable Device Dependent" while the RX 550 has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 550 measures 145 mm (5.7 inches) in length; the Pro 5500M has no listed dimensions.

Release dates differ substantially: the Pro 5500M launched on 2019-11-12, the RX 550 on 2017-04-19. The RX 550's launch MSRP was 79 USD. The Pro 5500M has no launch MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better Metal performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M scores 38,235 in Geekbench Metal versus the RX 550's 20,838, an 83.5% advantage.

Q: How do the cards compare in OpenCL compute?

A: The Pro 5500M scores 31,088 in Geekbench OpenCL against 11,063 for the RX 550, a 181% lead.

Q: Is the Pro 5500M faster in Vulkan?

A: Yes, by the largest margin of any shared test. The Pro 5500M scores 35,134 versus 12,270, a 186.3% delta.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Pro 5500M has 8 GB of GDDR6, while the RX 550 has 2 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus, but bandwidth is 192.0 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s.

Q: Which card consumes less power?

A: The RX 550 has a 50 W TDP, compared to the Pro 5500M's 85 W. The RX 550 also lists a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: What are the manufacturing process nodes?

A: The Pro 5500M is built on a 7 nm TSMC process, while the RX 550 uses a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is categorically superior to the AMD Radeon RX 550 in every benchmark where both have results. The 83.5% Metal lead, the 181% OpenCL lead, and the 186.3% Vulkan lead are not incremental improvements — they represent a generational leap in compute capability. The Pro 5500M's RDNA 1.0 architecture on 7 nm, with 1,536 shading units and 8 GB of GDDR6, simply outclasses the GCN 4.0 Lexa chip with 512 shading units and 2 GB of GDDR5.

The RX 550's advantages are limited to power draw (50 W versus 85 W), a lower base clock (1100 MHz versus 1000 MHz), and a defined desktop form factor with standard display outputs. Its 79 USD launch MSRP reflects its position as an entry-level desktop card. But for anyone choosing between these two for compute or rendering workloads, the Pro 5500M is the only rational pick from a performance standpoint. Its average benchmark score of 11,528 places it just below the RX 7800 XT, while the RX 550's 11,075 sits near the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q — a comparison that underscores how different these cards are despite their adjacent percentile rankings.

The Pro 5500M targets mobile Mac Pro systems, as its "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs and "Radeon Pro Mac (Navi Mobile)" generation indicate. The RX 550 targets budget desktop builds with its dual-slot cooler and 145 mm length. The specification differences — 6,400 million versus 2,200 million transistors, 4.454 TFLOPS versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS FP32, 192.0 GB/s versus 112.0 GB/s — all favor the Pro 5500M. For users who need the performance, the choice is clear. For users who need an inexpensive, low-power desktop card, the RX 550 remains a functional option, but the benchmark data shows no scenario where it outperforms the Pro 5500M.