AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 vs AMD Radeon RX 6550M Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 and the AMD Radeon RX 6550M occupy different corners of the AMD graphics lineup. The former is a professional mobile-class part built on older GCN architecture, while the latter is a modern RDNA 2 gaming-focused mobile chip. The database records two shared benchmark runs, and in both, the Pro Vega 48 comes out ahead. However, the differences in architecture, memory subsystem, and feature support make the choice less straightforward than raw scores suggest.

The Pro Vega 48 achieves an average benchmark score of 60140, placing it in the 88th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The RX 6550M, by contrast, averages 46702, sitting in the 85th percentile. While the percentile gap is narrow, the raw score difference is substantial. The Pro Vega 48 sits near the RTX 4090 in the database, trailing it by only 0.3%, and it edges out the AMD Radeon PRO V710 by 2.5%. The RX 6550M is closely matched with the Intel Arc A530M (0.2% ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (0.2% ahead), while leading the NVIDIA RTX A2000 by 1.4%.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 is the stronger performer in both shared benchmarks. It wins the OpenCL test with a score of 53757 against 42536, a margin of 26.4%. It also wins the Vulkan test with 57653 against 50867, a 13.3% advantage. For any workload that relies on these APIs, the Pro Vega 48 delivers meaningfully higher throughput.

The RX 6550M is not without merit, but its wins are not found in raw compute. It belongs to a newer architecture generation, supports a more recent DirectX feature level, and runs on a smaller process node. However, the benchmark data does not show any test where the RX 6550M outpaces the Pro Vega 48. The Verdict is clear: if performance in OpenCL or Vulkan is the primary criterion, the Pro Vega 48 is the pick. If the workload requires the latest API features or lower power draw, the RX 6550M becomes relevant, but those attributes do not translate to benchmark victories in the recorded data.

Architecture Differences

The Pro Vega 48 uses the Vega 10 chip, built on GCN 5.0 architecture with a 14 nm process from GlobalFoundries. It packs 12,500 million transistors on a 495 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.3 million per square millimeter. The RX 6550M uses the Navi 24 chip, built on RDNA 2.0 architecture with a 6 nm process from TSMC. It contains 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, with a density of 50.5 million per square millimeter. The density difference is stark: the newer chip crams nearly twice as many transistors into a fraction of the area.

The Pro Vega 48 has 3072 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The RX 6550M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The older chip has three times the shader count, but the newer chip compensates with higher clocks. The RX 6550M runs a base clock of 2000 MHz, a game clock of 2560 MHz, and a boost clock of 2840 MHz. The Pro Vega 48 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. That clock advantage helps the RX 6550M reach a pixel rate of 90.88 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Pro Vega 48's 76.80 GPixel/s. In texture rate, the Pro Vega 48 leads with 230.4 GTexel/s against 181.8 GTexel/s.

The RX 6550M includes 16 ray tracing cores, while the Pro Vega 48 has none. This is a generational leap in feature support. The RX 6550M also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), whereas the Pro Vega 48 only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the RX 6550M supports Vulkan 1.4 while the Pro Vega 48 supports Vulkan 1.3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains two direct comparisons between these GPUs. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Pro Vega 48 scores 53757, the RX 6550M scores 42536. The Pro Vega 48 wins by 26.4%. This is a large margin, reflecting the older chip's far wider memory bus and higher shader count. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Pro Vega 48 scores 57653, the RX 6550M scores 50867. The Pro Vega 48 wins by 13.3%. The Vulkan gap is smaller than OpenCL, suggesting the RX 6550M's newer architecture narrows the difference under that API, but it still falls short.

Across both tests, the Pro Vega 48 wins two and the RX 6550M wins zero. The average benchmark score reflects this: 60140 for the Pro Vega 48 versus 46702 for the RX 6550M, a difference of roughly 28.8% in favor of the older part. Interestingly, the Pro Vega 48's average score is higher than either of its individual test results, while the RX 6550M's average is lower than its Vulkan score but higher than its OpenCL score. This suggests the database's averaging method weights tests in a way that is not directly visible from the two shared runs.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification. The process node is 14 nm for the Pro Vega 48 versus 6 nm for the RX 6550M. The foundry is GlobalFoundries versus TSMC. Transistor count is 12,500 million versus 5,400 million. Die size is 495 mm² versus 107 mm². Transistor density is 25.3M per mm² versus 50.5M per mm².

Memory is a major divergence. The Pro Vega 48 has 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus, delivering 402.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6550M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s. The memory clock is listed as 786 MHz with 1572 Mbps effective for the Pro Vega 48, while the RX 6550M runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The bandwidth difference is nearly threefold in favor of the Pro Vega 48.

Compute resources also differ widely. The Pro Vega 48 has 3072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The RX 6550M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Pro Vega 48 delivers 7.373 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.75 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The RX 6550M delivers 5.816 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.63 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). The older chip leads in both FP32 and FP16 throughput.

Power and interfaces are also different. The RX 6550M has a TDP of 80 W, while the Pro Vega 48 has no recorded TDP. Both are listed as IGP slot width with no power connectors. The Pro Vega 48 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, the RX 6550M uses PCIe 4.0 x4. The RX 6550M has a release date of 2023-01-03, while the Pro Vega 48 was released on 2019-03-18. The Pro Vega 48 is end-of-life, the RX 6550M is active. The RX 6550M has a predecessor listed as Polaris Mobile, while the Pro Vega 48 has no predecessor or successor recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48. It delivers 7.373 TFLOPS FP32 and 14.75 TFLOPS FP16, while the AMD Radeon RX 6550M delivers 5.816 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.63 TFLOPS FP16.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each GPU?

A: The Pro Vega 48 has 402.4 GB/s from 8 GB of HBM2 on a 2048-bit bus. The RX 6550M has 144.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Does the RX 6550M support ray tracing?

A: Yes. The RX 6550M has 16 ray tracing cores. The Pro Vega 48 has zero ray tracing cores.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The RX 6550M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Pro Vega 48 supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Pro Vega 48 is built on a 14 nm process by GlobalFoundries. The RX 6550M is built on a 6 nm process by TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel rate?

A: The RX 6550M has a pixel rate of 90.88 GPixel/s, which is higher than the Pro Vega 48's 76.80 GPixel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro Vega 48 wins in compute throughput. Its FP32 and FP16 figures are higher, its shader count is three times larger, and its texture rate is 230.4 GTexel/s versus 181.8 GTexel/s. Its memory bandwidth of 402.4 GB/s is nearly three times the RX 6550M's 144.0 GB/s, which directly benefits OpenCL workloads that move large data sets. The benchmark results confirm this: a 26.4% OpenCL win and a 13.3% Vulkan win. The Pro Vega 48 also has 8 GB of memory, double the RX 6550M's 4 GB, which matters for large frame buffers or compute buffers.

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M wins in efficiency and modern features. Its 6 nm process and 80 W TDP indicate a far lower power draw than the Pro Vega 48, which has no recorded TDP but uses a 495 mm² die from 2019. The RX 6550M has 16 ray tracing cores, supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, and runs Vulkan 1.4. Its pixel rate of 90.88 GPixel/s is higher, and its boost clock of 2840 MHz is far above anything the Pro Vega 48 can reach, since the older chip has no recorded boost clock. For rasterization-heavy tasks that benefit from high pixel throughput, the RX 6550M has an edge.

The database does not record any benchmark where the RX 6550M wins. Both shared tests go to the Pro Vega 48. However, the RX 6550M's advantages are in areas not covered by those tests: ray tracing support, newer API levels, and lower power consumption. The Pro Vega 48's wins are in raw compute and bandwidth, which are directly measured.

The Pro Vega 48 sits at the 88th percentile of all GPUs, with an average score of 60140. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc Pro A60, is only 0.3% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 is also 0.3% behind, meaning the Pro Vega 48 essentially matches those parts in the database's scoring. The RX 6550M, at the 85th percentile, is closer to the Intel Arc A530M and RX 5600M, both within 0.2%. The Pro Vega 48 is a higher-tier part in the database's ranking.

For users choosing between these two, the decision hinges on workload. If the task is compute-heavy, uses OpenCL or Vulkan, and requires large memory capacity, the Pro Vega 48 is the data-backed choice. If the task requires ray tracing, DirectX 12 Ultimate features, or operates under tight power constraints, the RX 6550M is the relevant option, despite its lower benchmark scores. The recorded data gives the Pro Vega 48 two wins and the RX 6550M zero, but the architecture differences suggest the RX 6550M is the more future-proof part for gaming-specific features.