AMD Radeon PRO W7400 vs AMD Radeon RX 6550M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 and the AMD Radeon RX 6550M occupy different corners of the GPU landscape, and the recorded data reflects that split clearly. The PRO W7400 is built as a workstation-oriented part with a 55 W TDP, a single-slot footprint, and four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, making it a candidate for compact professional systems that need multi-display output. The RX 6550M, by contrast, is a mobile chip with an 80 W TDP, an IGP form factor, and display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," which points directly at laptop integration.

The benchmark data only contains results for the RX 6550M. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 42,536, and its Geekbench Vulkan score is 50,867. The PRO W7400 has no recorded benchmark scores in the database, so the quantitative comparison rests entirely on the RX 6550M's measured performance. The RX 6550M sits at the 85th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 46,702. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the Intel Arc A530M averages 46,614 (0.2% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 5600M averages 46,601 (0.2% delta), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 averages 46,043 (1.4% delta), and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation averages 45,972 (1.6% delta). The RX 6550M leads all four, but the margins are narrow, ranging from 0.2% to 1.6%.

The PRO W7400's wins are structural rather than measured. It offers more memory (8 GB versus 4 GB), a wider memory bus (128 bit versus 64 bit), higher memory bandwidth (172.8 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s), more shading units (1,792 versus 1,024), more texture mapping units (112 versus 64), more render output units (64 versus 32), and more ray tracing cores (28 versus 16). In pure compute resources, the PRO W7400 has the edge on paper. Its FP32 throughput is 7.885 TFLOPS, while the RX 6550M delivers 5.816 TFLOPS. The RX 6550M counters with higher clock speeds (2,840 MHz boost versus 1,100 MHz boost), a higher pixel rate (90.88 GPixel/s versus 70.40 GPixel/s), and a higher texture rate (181.8 GTexel/s versus 123.2 GTexel/s).

The use-case split is therefore clear: the RX 6550M wins on measured compute benchmarks in the database, but the PRO W7400 wins on memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and raw shader count, which are attributes that matter for large datasets and multi-display professional workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, codenamed "Hotpink Bonefish," and belongs to the Radeon Pro Navi (Navi III Series) generation. The RX 6550M uses the Navi 24 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture and belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) generation. Both are fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The transistor counts diverge sharply. The PRO W7400 packs 13,300 million transistors on a 204 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 65.2 million per mm². The RX 6550M has 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, with a density of 50.5 million per mm². The PRO W7400's die is nearly twice as large and carries more than twice the transistors, which explains its higher shader count and larger memory interface.

The memory subsystems also differ. The PRO W7400 uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus, achieving 172.8 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6550M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus, achieving 144.0 GB/s. The PRO W7400's memory clock is 1,350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective), while the RX 6550M's memory clock is 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective). The RX 6550M compensates for its narrower bus with faster memory, but the PRO W7400 still ends up with more total bandwidth.

The compute architectures differ in FP16 handling. The PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, meaning it does not double FP16 throughput. The RX 6550M delivers 11.63 TFLOPS FP16 at a 2:1 ratio, effectively doubling its FP16 performance relative to FP32. This makes the RX 6550M better suited for workloads that can exploit FP16 arithmetic, while the PRO W7400's FP32 and FP16 are identical.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The PRO W7400 connects via PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RX 6550M uses PCIe 4.0 x4. The PRO W7400 has no power connectors and requires a suggested 250 W PSU, while the RX 6550M also has no power connectors but has no suggested PSU listed, consistent with its mobile IGP design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the PRO W7400 and the RX 6550M. The only measured scores belong to the RX 6550M, so the comparison must rely on the PRO W7400's theoretical specifications against the RX 6550M's recorded performance.

The RX 6550M's Geekbench OpenCL score of 42,536 and Vulkan score of 50,867 place it in the 85th percentile overall. Its average benchmark score of 46,702 is slightly above the Intel Arc A530M's 46,614 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 5600M's 46,601 (0.2% ahead), the NVIDIA RTX A2000's 46,043 (1.4% ahead), and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation's 45,972 (1.6% ahead). These are small deltas, indicating that the RX 6550M performs in a tightly competitive band among mobile and compact GPUs.

The PRO W7400's FP32 throughput of 7.885 TFLOPS is 35.5% higher than the RX 6550M's 5.816 TFLOPS, which suggests a substantial advantage in compute-heavy tasks if the rest of the architecture scales accordingly. However, the PRO W7400's pixel rate of 70.40 GPixel/s is 22.5% lower than the RX 6550M's 90.88 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 123.2 GTexel/s is 32.2% lower than the RX 6550M's 181.8 GTexel/s. The clock speed difference is stark: the RX 6550M boosts to 2,840 MHz versus the PRO W7400's 1,100 MHz, a 2.58x gap.

What the data implies is that the RX 6550M wins on fill-rate-bound and clock-bound tasks, while the PRO W7400 wins on compute-bound and memory-capacity-bound tasks. Without direct benchmark scores for the PRO W7400, the database cannot confirm how these theoretical advantages translate into real-world measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 has 172.8 GB/s bandwidth from 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128 bit bus. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M has 144.0 GB/s from 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64 bit bus.

Q: How do their FP32 compute performances compare?

A: The PRO W7400 delivers 7.885 TFLOPS FP32, while the RX 6550M delivers 5.816 TFLOPS. The PRO W7400 is approximately 35.5% higher in FP32 throughput.

Q: What is the RX 6550M's percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The RX 6550M sits at the 85th percentile, with an average benchmark score of 46,702. Its nearest rival, the Intel Arc A530M, averages 46,614, a 0.2% delta.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The PRO W7400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the RX 6550M uses PCIe 4.0 x4.

Q: What are the TDPs of each card?

A: The PRO W7400 has a TDP of 55 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The RX 6550M has a TDP of 80 W with no suggested PSU listed.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The PRO W7400 has 28 ray tracing cores, while the RX 6550M has 16. The PRO W7400 also has more shading units (1,792 versus 1,024) and more ROPs (64 versus 32).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measured specification. The PRO W7400 uses the Navi 33 chip with RDNA 3.0 architecture, while the RX 6550M uses the Navi 24 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture. The PRO W7400 has a 204 mm² die with 13,300 million transistors (65.2M per mm²), while the RX 6550M has a 107 mm² die with 5,400 million transistors (50.5M per mm²).

Clock speeds differ substantially. The PRO W7400 has a base clock of 330 MHz and a boost clock of 1,100 MHz, with no game clock listed. The RX 6550M has a base clock of 2,000 MHz, a game clock of 2,560 MHz, and a boost clock of 2,840 MHz. Memory clocks also differ: the PRO W7400 runs at 1,350 MHz (10.8 Gbps effective), while the RX 6550M runs at 2,250 MHz (18 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration diverges: 8 GB versus 4 GB, 128 bit versus 64 bit bus, and 172.8 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. Compute units differ: the PRO W7400 has 1,792 shading units, 112 TMUs, 64 ROPs, and 28 RT cores; the RX 6550M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 16 RT cores. Pixel rates are 70.40 GPixel/s versus 90.88 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 123.2 GTexel/s versus 181.8 GTexel/s.

FP16 throughput differs in ratio: the PRO W7400 achieves 7.885 TFLOPS at 1:1 with FP32, while the RX 6550M achieves 11.63 TFLOPS at 2:1. TDP is 55 W for the PRO W7400 and 80 W for the RX 6550M. The PRO W7400 is single-slot with four DisplayPort 2.1 outputs, while the RX 6550M is IGP with portable-device-dependent outputs. The PRO W7400 measures 168 mm in length, 69 mm in height, and 20 mm in width; the RX 6550M has no dimensions listed. The PRO W7400 was released on 2025-08-02, while the RX 6550M was released on 2023-01-03.

The Verdict

The data indicates two distinct design philosophies. The AMD Radeon PRO W7400 is a workstation-focused GPU with double the memory capacity, more than double the transistor count, a wider memory bus, and significantly higher FP32 compute. It targets tasks where memory capacity and raw shader throughput dominate, such as large scene rendering, multi-display setups, and compute-heavy professional applications. Its 55 W TDP and single-slot design make it suitable for compact workstations.

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M is a mobile GPU with a much higher boost clock, higher pixel and texture rates, and faster memory clock. Its measured Geekbench scores (OpenCL 42,536, Vulkan 50,867) place it at the 85th percentile, just ahead of four closely matched rivals. The RX 6550M is better suited for clock-sensitive tasks and workloads that benefit from FP16 throughput, given its 2:1 FP16 ratio and 11.63 TFLOPS FP16 performance.

Users who need 8 GB of VRAM, a 128 bit memory bus, and 7.885 TFLOPS FP32 should look to the PRO W7400. Users who prioritize measured compute performance, higher fill rates, and a more compact mobile form factor should look to the RX 6550M. The database lacks direct benchmark scores for the PRO W7400, so its theoretical advantages remain unverified in measured tests. The RX 6550M's recorded performance is solid but narrowly edged over its nearest rivals, suggesting that the PRO W7400 would need to convert its specification advantages into benchmark wins to justify a preference in compute workloads.