AMD Radeon R9 M375 vs AMD Radeon RX 550 Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 550 decisively outperforms the AMD Radeon R9 M375 in every shared benchmark, with the data showing a clear generational leap in compute efficiency and API support. The RX 550 wins both head-to-head tests, taking Geekbench OpenCL by 5.8% and dominating Geekbench Vulkan by 26.7%, which translates to an average benchmark score of 11,075 versus 10,070 — a 10% overall gap. The R9 M375 retains a theoretical edge in raw shading throughput, but its older architecture and slower memory make it uncompetitive in modern workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 550 is the outright winner in every measured category that both cards share. In the two head-to-head benchmarks available, it claims victory in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 11,063 against the R9 M375’s 10,457, and in Geekbench Vulkan with 12,270 against 9,682. This gives the RX 550 a clean 2–0 win record. Its advantage is most pronounced in Vulkan, where the 26.7% delta highlights the RX 550’s modern GCN 4.0 architecture and its full Vulkan 1.3 API support, compared to the R9 M375’s older GCN 1.0 design and Vulkan 1.2.170 support.

The R9 M375 does not win any benchmark in this comparison. However, its specification sheet shows it has 640 shading units and 40 texture mapping units, versus 512 and 32 on the RX 550, respectively. This gives the R9 M375 a nominal 20% more shaders and 25% more TMUs, which could theoretically favor it in older, less optimized titles that rely on raw parallel fill rates. Its texture rate of 40.60 GTexel/s also edges out the RX 550’s 37.86 GTexel/s. Yet, the benchmark data shows this theoretical advantage does not translate into real-world performance, as the RX 550 wins all measured tests. The RX 550 also holds a 50th percentile ranking among all GPUs, while the R9 M375 sits at the 48th percentile, reinforcing its superior standing.

Architecture Differences

The core architectural split is stark: the RX 550 uses GCN 4.0 on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process, while the R9 M375 uses GCN 1.0 on a 28 nm TSMC process. This process shrink alone explains much of the performance gap, as the RX 550 packs 2,200 million transistors into a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4M per mm². The R9 M375, by contrast, has 1,500 million transistors on a larger 123 mm² die, giving it a density of just 12.2M per mm² — nearly half the density. The RX 550’s newer node also enables a smaller die and lower power draw, with a 50 W TDP versus no TDP listed for the R9 M375.

Memory architecture diverges sharply as well. The RX 550 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The R9 M375 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, but only achieves 28.80 GB/s — a 74% reduction in bandwidth. This is the single largest specification difference and directly explains the RX 550’s massive Vulkan win, as memory bandwidth is critical for modern graphics workloads. Clock speeds also differ: the RX 550 runs at 1100 MHz base and 1183 MHz boost, with memory at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the R9 M375 runs at 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost, with memory at just 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Feature support tells a similar story of generational progress. The RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3, while the R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RX 550 also has dedicated display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a), whereas the R9 M375 lists none. The RX 550 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the R9 M375 uses a wider PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, though the RX 550’s higher bandwidth per lane compensates in practice.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a 5.8% win for the RX 550, scoring 11,063 against the R9 M375’s 10,457. This margin is modest but consistent, reflecting the RX 550’s higher memory bandwidth and better compute efficiency despite having fewer shaders. The R9 M375’s 1,299.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute is actually 7.3% higher than the RX 550’s 1,211.4 GFLOPS, but the RX 550’s GDDR5 memory provides 3.9x the bandwidth, which is the deciding factor in OpenCL workloads that are often memory-bound.

The Geekbench Vulkan test is a blowout. The RX 550 scores 12,270, a 26.7% lead over the R9 M375’s 9,682. This delta is far larger than the OpenCL gap and points to a combination of factors: the RX 550’s native Vulkan 1.3 support (versus 1.2.170), its faster memory, and its newer GCN 4.0 instruction set. The R9 M375’s GCN 1.0 architecture was designed before Vulkan was finalized, so it lacks the scheduling optimizations present in the RX 550. This benchmark alone accounts for most of the overall average score difference.

The RX 550 also has additional benchmark results not available for the R9 M375: a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 127 and a Geekbench Metal score of 20,838. These results cannot be compared directly, but they demonstrate the RX 550’s broader API coverage, including Apple’s Metal API, which the R9 M375 does not support. The RX 550’s average benchmark score of 11,075 places it within 0.1% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q and RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q (both at 11,088), and 0.3% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER (11,047). The R9 M375’s average of 10,070 sits 0.3% above the Quadro K5100M (10,043) and 0.6% above the Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013).

Specification Differences

The RX 550 and R9 M375 differ on nearly every core specification. The RX 550 uses a 14 nm process, while the R9 M375 uses 28 nm. The RX 550 has 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, versus 1,500 million on 123 mm² for the R9 M375. Transistor density is 21.4M/mm² for the RX 550 versus 12.2M/mm² for the R9 M375. Clock speeds favor the RX 550: 1100 MHz base and 1183 MHz boost versus 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost. Memory speed is dramatically different: 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) on GDDR5 for the RX 550 versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on DDR3 for the R9 M375.

Memory bandwidth is the biggest separator: 112.0 GB/s for the RX 550 versus 28.80 GB/s for the R9 M375. Shading units favor the R9 M375 (640 vs 512), as do TMUs (40 vs 32), but ROPs are equal at 16. Pixel rate is higher on the RX 550 (18.93 GPixel/s vs 16.24 GPixel/s), while texture rate is higher on the R9 M375 (40.60 GTexel/s vs 37.86 GTexel/s). FP32 compute is higher on the R9 M375 (1,299.2 GFLOPS vs 1,211.4 GFLOPS), and the RX 550 supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio while the R9 M375 has no FP16 listing.

Power and physical specs also differ: the RX 550 has a 50 W TDP, dual-slot width, no power connectors, and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the R9 M375 has none of these listed. The RX 550 is 145 mm (5.7 inches) long, while the R9 M375 has no dimensions listed. Bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x8 for the RX 550 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the R9 M375. The RX 550 has display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0b, DisplayPort 1.4a), while the R9 M375 has none listed. Release dates are 2017-04-19 for the RX 550 and 2015-05-04 for the R9 M375. The RX 550 has a launch MSRP of 79 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 has 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the AMD Radeon R9 M375 has 28.80 GB/s — a 3.9x advantage for the RX 550.

Q: Why does the RX 550 win Vulkan by such a large margin?

A: The RX 550 supports Vulkan 1.3 and uses GDDR5 memory, while the R9 M375 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and uses DDR3. The combination of newer API support and 74% more bandwidth yields a 26.7% score advantage.

Q: Does the R9 M375 have any specification advantage?

A: Yes, it has more shading units (640 vs 512), more TMUs (40 vs 32), higher FP32 compute (1,299.2 GFLOPS vs 1,211.4 GFLOPS), and a higher texture rate (40.60 GTexel/s vs 37.86 GTexel/s). These advantages do not translate into benchmark wins.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The RX 550 has an average benchmark score of 11,075, while the R9 M375 has 10,070, making the RX 550 roughly 10% faster on average.

Q: Which card has better API support for DirectX?

A: The RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R9 M375 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The RX 550’s higher feature level is better suited for modern games.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon RX 550 and the AMD Radeon R9 M375 have a production status of "End-of-life."

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 550 is the clear choice for any modern workload, winning both head-to-head benchmarks and holding a higher percentile ranking (50th vs 48th). Its 26.7% Vulkan advantage is the decisive factor, driven by GDDR5 memory at 112.0 GB/s versus DDR3 at 28.80 GB/s, plus full Vulkan 1.3 support. The RX 550 also offers broader API coverage, including Metal and 3DMark DX12 results that the R9 M375 cannot match. Its smaller 14 nm die, lower 50 W TDP, and display outputs make it the more practical and future-proof option.

The AMD Radeon R9 M375 should only be considered if raw shader count matters more than measured performance, which the data contradicts. Its 640 shading units and higher FP32 compute (1,299.2 GFLOPS) suggest it could excel in compute-heavy legacy applications, but its 28 nm process, DDR3 memory, and older GCN 1.0 architecture cripple real-world results. With no Vulkan 1.3 support and only 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, it cannot keep pace in any modern benchmark. The RX 550’s 5.8% OpenCL win and 26.7% Vulkan win make it the definitive pick for anyone choosing between these two end-of-life cards.