AMD Radeon RX 5300M vs AMD Radeon RX 6550M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between these two mobile graphics processors, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL compute test, the AMD Radeon RX 6550M scores 42,536 points, while the AMD Radeon RX 5300M scores 36,529 points. This gives the RX 6550M a 16.4% advantage in raw compute performance, a substantial margin for a mobile part.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the RX 6550M's average benchmark score of 46,702 places it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The RX 5300M, by contrast, averages 36,529 points and sits in the 80th percentile. The 16.4% lead in OpenCL translates directly into a noticeable gap in the overall average score, where the newer part holds a 10,173-point advantage.

The RX 6550M also demonstrates strong positioning against its nearest rivals. It sits within 0.2% of the Intel Arc A530M (46,614 points) and the AMD Radeon RX 5600M (46,601 points), effectively trading blows with those two parts. It leads the NVIDIA RTX A2000 by 1.4% and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation by 1.6% in average score. This means the RX 6550M is not merely beating its older counterpart; it is competitive with a cluster of modern mobile and workstation GPUs around the 46,000-point mark.

The RX 5300M's rivalry data tells a different story. It is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN X (36,530 points, a 0% delta), which speaks to its age and performance tier. It trails the AMD Radeon PRO W6400 by 1.7% (37,157 points) but leads the NVIDIA T1000 by 0.7% (36,289 points) and the AMD Radeon Pro Duo by 1.9% (35,860 points). The RX 5300M is firmly in the 36,000 to 37,000-point class, while the RX 6550M operates in the 46,000-point class, a full tier higher. The head-to-head delta of 16.4% is consistent with this tier separation.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for most users. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M outperforms the AMD Radeon RX 5300M in the only direct benchmark available, and it does so by a significant 16.4% margin in OpenCL compute. Its average benchmark score is higher, its percentile ranking is better (85th versus 80th), and it competes with a much stronger set of rivals. Anyone considering these two parts for a new system should favor the RX 6550M without hesitation, provided the rest of the platform supports it.

The RX 5300M is an end-of-life product, while the RX 6550M is listed as active in production. The newer part also brings architectural advancements that go beyond raw compute, which we will cover in the architecture section. For compute-heavy workloads, content creation, or modern gaming, the RX 6550M is the superior choice based on the recorded measurements.

However, there is a nuance for system integrators or users constrained by specific hardware requirements. The RX 5300M uses a 96-bit memory bus with 3 GB of GDDR6, while the RX 6550M uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR6. The older part has higher memory bandwidth (168.0 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s) despite its smaller capacity. In memory-bandwidth-bound scenarios, the RX 5300M might hold an edge, but the RX 6550M's massive compute advantage is likely to dominate in most real-world tasks. The verdict from the data is straightforward: the RX 6550M wins.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 6550M than the RX 5300M in OpenCL?

A: The RX 6550M scores 42,536 points versus the RX 5300M's 36,529 points, a 16.4% advantage in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M has an average benchmark score of 46,702 points, compared to the RX 5300M's 36,529 points.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of production status?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M is listed as Active in production, while the AMD Radeon RX 5300M is listed as End-of-life.

Q: What is the percentile ranking of each GPU in the database?

A: The RX 6550M sits in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 5300M sits in the 80th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RX 5300M has 1,408 shading units, while the RX 6550M has 1,024 shading units. Despite fewer units, the RX 6550M achieves a higher FP32 throughput of 5.816 TFLOPS versus 4.069 TFLOPS.

Q: Is there a Vulkan benchmark result for the RX 5300M?

A: No, the database only records a Geekbench OpenCL score for the RX 5300M. The RX 6550M additionally has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 50,867 points.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The RX 6550M has 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units, while the RX 5300M has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The older part has more of the former two, but the newer part compensates with much higher clock speeds: the RX 6550M boosts to 2840 MHz and has a game clock of 2560 MHz, whereas the RX 5300M boosts to only 1445 MHz with a game clock of 1181 MHz. Base clocks are 2000 MHz versus 1000 MHz, respectively.

Memory configurations diverge significantly. The RX 6550M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth and 18 Gbps effective memory speed. The RX 5300M has 3 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus, yielding 168.0 GB/s of bandwidth and 14 Gbps effective memory speed. The older part has higher bandwidth but less capacity.

Compute rates tell the performance story. The RX 6550M achieves 5.816 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.63 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1), while the RX 5300M achieves 4.069 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.138 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1). Pixel rates are 90.88 GPixel/s for the RX 6550M versus 46.24 GPixel/s for the RX 5300M, and texture rates are 181.8 GTexel/s versus 127.2 GTexel/s. The RX 6550M has a lower TDP of 80 W versus 85 W for the RX 5300M. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x4 for the RX 6550M and PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RX 5300M. Both lack power connectors and use portable device dependent display outputs.

Architecture Differences

The RX 6550M is built on the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 24 chip, while the RX 5300M uses the RDNA 1.0 architecture with the Navi 14 chip. This generational leap is significant. The RX 6550M is manufactured on a 6 nm process at TSMC, whereas the RX 5300M uses a 7 nm process, also at TSMC. The newer process allows for a much smaller die: 107 mm² for the RX 6550M versus 158 mm² for the RX 5300M, despite the latter having more transistors (6,400 million versus 5,400 million). Transistor density is 50.5M per mm² for the RX 6550M and 40.5M per mm² for the RX 5300M.

The RX 6550M includes 16 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the RX 5300M, which lists no RT cores. This is a fundamental capability difference. The RX 6550M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5300M only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6550M's generation is listed as Navi Mobile (RX 6000M), and the RX 5300M's is Navi Mobile (RX 5000M). Both share the same predecessor, Polaris Mobile, and neither has a recorded successor. The RX 6550M has a slot width of IGP, while the RX 5300M has no recorded slot width.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M wins in nearly every measurable category. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 16.4%. It has higher FP32 and FP16 compute throughput, higher pixel and texture rates, more VRAM (4 GB versus 3 GB), a more advanced architecture with ray tracing support, a newer manufacturing process, and a better percentile ranking. It also consumes less power, drawing 80 W compared to the RX 5300M's 85 W. For gaming, content creation, compute workloads, and any task that leverages modern DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the RX 6550M is the clear winner.

The AMD Radeon RX 5300M has limited advantages, but they exist. It offers higher memory bandwidth (168.0 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s) thanks to its wider 96-bit bus. It has more shading units (1,408 versus 1,024) and more texture mapping units (88 versus 64), which could theoretically benefit workloads that scale with those resources if clock speeds were equal, but the RX 6550M's much higher clocks negate that advantage in practice. The RX 5300M also uses a wider PCIe 4.0 x8 interface versus the RX 6550M's x4, which could matter for data transfer in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios. Finally, the RX 5300M's lower average score (36,529 versus 46,702) means it occupies a lower performance tier, but it is also an older, end-of-life product. For users with a strict power envelope, the RX 6550M actually uses less power, so the RX 5300M does not even win there. The data shows one winner across the board, with the RX 5300M only edging ahead in memory bandwidth and raw unit counts that do not translate to real-world performance gains.