AMD Radeon R9 M265X vs AMD Radeon RX 550X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single head-to-head benchmark between these two mobile graphics processors, and the result is a clear, if modest, victory for the newer part. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon RX 550X recorded a score of 9662 against the AMD Radeon R9 M265X's 8851. That translates to a 9.2% advantage for the RX 550X, a meaningful gap in a workload that stresses raw compute throughput across the GPU's shading units.

The average benchmark score across all recorded tests tells a similar story. The RX 550X holds an average score of 10481, while the R9 M265X sits at 8851. This broader average, which includes the RX 550X's additional Vulkan result of 11299, widens the effective performance separation well beyond the single OpenCL head-to-head delta. The RX 550X's average is roughly 18.4% higher than the R9 M265X's average, indicating that the newer architecture benefits from more than just clock speed improvements.

Percentile rankings reinforce the hierarchy. The RX 550X places in the 49th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the R9 M265X lands in the 44th percentile. This five-point percentile gap is consistent with the benchmark deltas and suggests the RX 550X sits in a slightly higher performance tier overall.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The RX 550X's average score of 10481 places it within a tight cluster of competitors. It trails the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (average score 10582) by 1%, and it trails the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (average score 10629) by 1.4%. Conversely, it leads the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (average score 10400) by 0.8% and the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (average score 10362) by 1.2%. These are narrow margins, indicating the RX 550X competes in a crowded field of similar-performance parts.

The R9 M265X, with its average score of 8851, sits in a lower performance band. It is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (average score 8863), trailing that card by just 0.1%. It also trails the AMD Radeon 550X (average score 8918) by 0.8%. On the other side, it leads the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 A Mobile (average score 8746) by 1.2% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 v2 (average score 8743) by the same 1.2% margin. The R9 M265X's competitive set is clearly a step below the RX 550X's, and the performance gap between the two cards reflects that positioning.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows the AMD Radeon RX 550X winning the only direct comparison available, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test with a 9.2% margin. This makes the RX 550X the stronger choice for general-purpose compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, such as content creation acceleration, video encoding tasks, and scientific or engineering simulations that offload work to the GPU.

The RX 550X also demonstrates versatility through its Vulkan support. The card recorded a Geekbench Vulkan score of 11299, which is notably higher than its OpenCL score of 9662. This suggests the architecture responds particularly well to modern graphics APIs, potentially giving it an edge in Vulkan-based games and applications. The R9 M265X has no Vulkan benchmark result in the database, so its performance in that API remains unmeasured.

In terms of raw throughput figures, the RX 550X dominates on multiple fronts. Its pixel rate of 18.93 GPixel/s is nearly double the R9 M265X's 10.00 GPixel/s, an 89.3% advantage. Texture rate follows a similar pattern, with the RX 550X delivering 37.86 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s, a 51.4% lead. Floating-point performance (FP32) shows the RX 550X at 1,211.4 GFLOPS against the R9 M265X's 800.0 GFLOPS, a 51.4% advantage. These figures indicate the RX 550X should handle resolution scaling and texture-heavy rendering more comfortably.

The R9 M265X does claim one structural advantage: its shading unit count is higher at 640 units versus 512 on the RX 550X, and it also has more texture mapping units (40 versus 32). However, this architectural edge does not translate into benchmark wins, as the R9 M265X's much lower clocks (575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost versus 1100 MHz base and 1183 MHz boost on the RX 550X) negate the raw unit advantage.

For use cases where the R9 M265X might still be relevant, the data points to legacy compatibility. It supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, which covers most modern titles, but its lower compute performance and older architecture mean it is best suited for less demanding workloads. The RX 550X, by contrast, supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, offering broader API compatibility and better future-proofing.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras of AMD's design philosophy. The RX 550X is built on the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Lexa chip, part of the Polaris (RX 500X) generation. The R9 M265X uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Venus chip, belonging to the Gem System (R9 M200) generation. This generational gap explains much of the performance difference.

Manufacturing process technology separates the two significantly. The RX 550X is fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the R9 M265X uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The smaller process node allows the RX 550X to pack 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The R9 M265X, despite its older process, carries 1,500 million transistors on a larger 123 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 550X achieves higher transistor density on a smaller die, which contributes to its efficiency and performance advantages.

Clock speeds reflect the architectural and process improvements. The RX 550X operates at a base clock of 1100 MHz with a boost clock of 1183 MHz, while the R9 M265X runs at 575 MHz base and 625 MHz boost. The RX 550X nearly doubles the clock frequency, which is the primary driver behind its higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput despite having fewer shading units.

Memory subsystems also differ. The RX 550X features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M265X offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus width, but its memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), capping bandwidth at 64.00 GB/s. The RX 550X provides 50% more memory bandwidth, which benefits high-resolution textures and memory-intensive compute workloads.

The RX 550X also includes half-precision FP16 support at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, offering 1,211.4 GFLOPS for both precision levels. The R9 M265X has no recorded FP16 capability, limiting its usefulness in workloads that can leverage reduced precision for faster computation.

Connectivity and output options differ as well. The RX 550X uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and provides display outputs including 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The R9 M265X uses a wider PCIe 3.0 x16 interface but has no recorded display outputs in the database. Both cards support DirectX 12, though the RX 550X supports the 12_0 feature level while the R9 M265X only reaches 11_1. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6, while Vulkan support favors the RX 550X at 1.3 versus 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications show several clear differences between the two cards. Process node: the RX 550X uses 14 nm at GlobalFoundries, while the R9 M265X uses 28 nm at TSMC. Transistor count: 2,200 million for the RX 550X versus 1,500 million for the R9 M265X. Die size: 103 mm² for the RX 550X versus 123 mm² for the R9 M265X. Transistor density: 21.4 million per mm² versus 12.2 million per mm².

Base clock: 1100 MHz on the RX 550X versus 575 MHz on the R9 M265X. Boost clock: 1183 MHz versus 625 MHz. Memory clock: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Memory size: 4 GB versus 2 GB, both GDDR5. Memory bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. Bus width is identical at 128 bit.

Shading units: 512 on the RX 550X versus 640 on the R9 M265X. Texture mapping units: 32 versus 40. Raster operation units are equal at 16. Pixel rate: 18.93 GPixel/s versus 10.00 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 37.86 GTexel/s versus 25.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance: 1,211.4 GFLOPS versus 800.0 GFLOPS. FP16 performance: 1,211.4 GFLOPS on the RX 550X, none recorded for the R9 M265X.

Power profile: the RX 550X has a TDP of 50 W, a dual-slot form factor, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R9 M265X has no TDP, slot width, power connector, or PSU data recorded. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the RX 550X versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the R9 M265X. Display outputs are recorded only for the RX 550X. Release dates: the RX 550X launched on 2018-12-15, while the R9 M265X launched on 2014-03-20. Both are end-of-life products. The RX 550X has a successor named Vega, while the R9 M265X's successor is Polaris Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the head-to-head benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9662 against the R9 M265X's 8851, a 9.2% advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 550X has an average benchmark score of 10481, while the R9 M265X averages 8851. The RX 550X also has a Vulkan score of 11299, which the R9 M265X does not have recorded.

Q: What are the key memory differences?

A: The RX 550X has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R9 M265X has 2 GB of GDDR5 with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The R9 M265X has 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units, while the RX 550X has 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units. Despite this, the RX 550X is faster due to much higher clocks.

Q: What are the architecture generations?

A: The RX 550X uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm process with the Lexa chip. The R9 M265X uses GCN 1.0 on a 28 nm process with the Venus chip.

Q: What API levels do they support?

A: The RX 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The R9 M265X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.