AMD Radeon Pro 5500M vs AMD Radeon RX 550X Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M and AMD Radeon RX 550X represent two distinct eras of AMD mobile graphics, separated by architecture, process node, and intended workload. The data shows a decisive performance gap, with the Pro 5500M leading by over 200% in the two shared benchmarks, yet the RX 550X holds its own as a lower-power, legacy-oriented part. This analysis compares their specifications, benchmark results, and architectural philosophies to determine where each GPU fits.

FAQ

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two GPUs in shared benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M leads by 221.8% in Geekbench OpenCL (31088 vs 9662) and by 210.9% in Geekbench Vulkan (35134 vs 11299). This is not a marginal difference; the Pro 5500M more than triples the RX 550X's scores in both tests.

Q: Which GPU has the higher transistor density, and what does that indicate?

A: The Pro 5500M has a transistor density of 40.5M per mm², nearly double the RX 550X's 21.4M per mm². This reflects the Pro 5500M's more modern 7 nm process from TSMC versus the RX 550X's 14 nm node from GlobalFoundries, allowing far more transistors (6,400 million vs 2,200 million) on a larger die (158 mm² vs 103 mm²).

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Pro 5500M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 550X uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but only achieves 96.00 GB/s. The Pro 5500M also runs its memory at 12 Gbps effective, double the RX 550X's 6 Gbps effective rate.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units, and how does that affect compute performance?

A: The Pro 5500M has 1536 shading units, while the RX 550X has only 512. This directly translates to FP32 performance of 4.454 TFLOPS for the Pro 5500M versus 1,211.4 GFLOPS for the RX 550X, a roughly 3.7x difference in raw compute throughput.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API levels?

A: No. The Pro 5500M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the RX 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Pro 5500M has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each, and how do they rank among all GPUs?

A: The Pro 5500M has an average benchmark score of 11528, placing it in the 51st percentile of all GPUs. The RX 550X averages 10481, sitting in the 49th percentile. Despite the massive head-to-head gap, their overall percentiles are only 2 points apart, suggesting the RX 550X benefits from other benchmark results not shared here.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is stark. The Pro 5500M is built on RDNA 1.0, a modern gaming and compute architecture designed for efficiency and high clock speeds. It uses a 7 nm TSMC process with 6,400 million transistors packed into a 158 mm² die. In contrast, the RX 550X uses the older GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process with just 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die.

The Pro 5500M’s RDNA design brings several structural advantages. It features 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, compared to the RX 550X’s 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 3x difference in core counts is compounded by clock speeds: the Pro 5500M boosts to 1450 MHz from a 1000 MHz base, while the RX 550X boosts to only 1183 MHz from a 1100 MHz base. The Pro 5500M’s higher clocks and wider core configuration yield a pixel rate of 46.40 GPixel/s and texture rate of 139.2 GTexel/s, versus 18.93 GPixel/s and 37.86 GTexel/s for the RX 550X.

Memory architecture also diverges significantly. The Pro 5500M uses GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective on a 128-bit bus, achieving 192.0 GB/s. The RX 550X uses GDDR5 at 6 Gbps effective on the same bus width, halving bandwidth to 96.00 GB/s. The Pro 5500M also doubles VRAM capacity to 8 GB from 4 GB. FP16 performance differs as well: the Pro 5500M delivers 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the RX 550X delivers only 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), meaning the Pro 5500M has dedicated fast-path FP16 throughput.

The bus interface and power delivery also reflect their different generations. The Pro 5500M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RX 550X is limited to PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent on the Pro 5500M, whereas the RX 550X offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 550X is a dual-slot card measuring 145 mm in length, while the Pro 5500M’s dimensions are not specified, consistent with its mobile integration.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two benchmarks are shared between these GPUs, but both tell the same overwhelming story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro 5500M scores 31088 against the RX 550X’s 9662, a delta of 221.8%. This test is compute-heavy, and the Pro 5500M’s 1536 shading units and 192.0 GB/s bandwidth dominate the RX 550X’s 512 cores and 96.00 GB/s.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is similarly lopsided. The Pro 5500M posts 35134, while the RX 550X manages only 11299, a 210.9% lead. Vulkan is a low-level API that rewards raw geometry throughput and memory bandwidth, both of which favor the Pro 5500M’s RDNA architecture. The Pro 5500M’s 4.454 TFLOPS FP32 performance and 139.2 GTexel/s texture rate are more than triple the RX 550X’s figures, explaining the consistent tripling of scores.

The RX 550X wins no shared benchmark. However, its average benchmark score of 10481 is only 9.1% below the Pro 5500M’s 11528, suggesting that in other, non-shared tests (like Passmark or Geekbench Metal), the RX 550X may close some gap. The Pro 5500M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (0.4% ahead), AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (0.8% behind), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 (1.3% behind), showing it sits in a competitive mid-range tier. The RX 550X’s rivals include the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (0.8% ahead) and AMD Radeon R9 M275X (1% behind), placing it in a much lower performance class.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5500M | AMD Radeon RX 550X |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 7 nm (TSMC) | 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1100 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1450 MHz | 1183 MHz |

| Memory Size | 8 GB GDDR6 | 4 GB GDDR5 |

| Memory Speed | 12 Gbps effective | 6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 512 |

| TMUs | 96 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 46.40 GPixel/s | 18.93 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 139.2 GTexel/s | 37.86 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.454 TFLOPS | 1,211.4 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1) | 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 85 W | 50 W |

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

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

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

| Suggested PSU | None listed | 250 W |

| Slot Width | Not specified | Dual-slot |

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

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M wins everywhere the data matters. It dominates in both shared benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan) with leads exceeding 210%. Its architectural advantages—RDNA vs GCN, 7 nm vs 14 nm, 8 GB GDDR6 vs 4 GB GDDR5—translate into 3x the shading units, 3x the TMUs, 2x the ROPs, and 4x the FP16 throughput. For any workload involving modern APIs, high-resolution textures, or compute tasks, the Pro 5500M is the clear choice. Its 51st percentile ranking and proximity to the RX 7800 XT (within 0.8%) indicate it can handle contemporary gaming and professional applications.

The RX 550X’s wins are more limited but real. It has a lower TDP of 50 W versus 85 W, making it more power-efficient for basic tasks. Its base clock is higher (1100 MHz vs 1000 MHz), and it offers discrete display outputs (DVI, HDMI, DisplayPort) rather than relying on a portable device’s connectors. Its 49th percentile is only 2 points below the Pro 5500M, suggesting that in legacy DirectX 9/10/11 workloads (which are not shared benchmarks), it may perform relatively better. The RX 550X also has a 250 W suggested PSU, indicating it can be paired with modest systems, while the Pro 5500M lists no PSU requirement.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M is the superior GPU for any performance-sensitive task. Its 221.8% OpenCL lead and 210.9% Vulkan lead over the RX 550X are not incremental improvements but generational leaps. The Pro 5500M’s 51st percentile ranking, supported by an average score of 11528, places it in a tier where it trades blows with the NVIDIA Tesla K20c (0.4% difference) and the AMD Radeon RX 7800 XT (0.8% difference). For users needing 8 GB of GDDR6, 4.454 TFLOPS FP32, or any Vulkan 1.4 feature, the Pro 5500M is the only choice.

The RX 550X serves a different, narrower purpose. Its 50 W TDP and dual-slot, 145 mm physical format suit it to compact, low-power desktops where the 250 W PSU requirement is acceptable. Its 49th percentile and average score of 10481 place it near the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (0.8% ahead) and AMD Radeon R9 M275X (1% behind), indicating it is a legacy entry-level part. It wins no shared benchmarks, but its higher base clock (1100 MHz) and 1:1 FP16 ratio (1,211.4 GFLOPS) may serve basic compute tasks adequately. The RX 550X is for users who prioritize low power and discrete display outputs over raw performance; the Pro 5500M is for everyone else.