AMD Radeon RX 550 vs AMD Radeon RX 6500M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 550 and the AMD Radeon RX 6500M represent two very different eras of AMD’s GPU design, separated by a generational shift in architecture, process technology, and intended use case. The RX 550 is a 2017 desktop card built on the older GCN 4.0 architecture, while the RX 6500M is a 2022 mobile part using the modern RDNA 2.0 design. Despite the RX 550 having a higher percentile ranking (50th vs. 48th), the head-to-head benchmark data shows the RX 6500M delivering dramatically higher raw performance in compute and graphics workloads. This analysis explores what the data reveals about these two very different GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 has a higher average benchmark score of 11,075 compared to the AMD Radeon RX 6500M's 10,362. However, this average is based on different test suites; the RX 550's data includes a Geekbench Metal score, while the RX 6500M's data includes multiple Passmark tests.

Q: How much faster is the RX 6500M in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RX 6500M scores 38,586 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 71.3% higher than the RX 550's score of 11,063. This represents the largest performance gap between the two in any shared benchmark.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench Vulkan?

A: The RX 6500M achieves a Vulkan score of 43,837, while the RX 550 scores 12,270. The deltaPct of -72 indicates the RX 6500M is roughly 3.5 times faster in this particular test.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), a more feature-complete version of the API that includes hardware ray tracing support.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The RX 6500M's Navi 24 chip has a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm², which is more than double the RX 550's Lexa chip density of 21.4 million per mm². This is achieved despite the die sizes being similar (107 mm² vs. 103 mm²).

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RX 6500M has 1,024 shading units, exactly double the 512 shading units found on the RX 550. This doubling of shader hardware is a primary reason for the RX 6500M's higher compute scores.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast, representing a fundamental redesign of AMD's GPU philosophy. The RX 550 is built on the GCN 4.0 architecture, codenamed Lexa, and fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This is a mature design from the Polaris generation that prioritized power efficiency at low cost. In contrast, the RX 6500M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Navi 24 chip, produced on TSMC's 6 nm process. This newer architecture introduces significant changes to the compute unit organization, with RDNA 2.0 designed specifically for higher clock speeds and better instruction-level parallelism.

The process node difference is stark: the RX 550 uses 14 nm, while the RX 6500M uses 6 nm. This allows the RX 6500M to pack 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, whereas the RX 550 fits just 2,200 million transistors into a similarly sized 103 mm² die. The resulting transistor density of 50.5M/mm² for the RX 6500M versus 21.4M/mm² for the RX 550 is a direct measure of the manufacturing advantage. Clock speeds reflect this too, with the RX 550's base clock at 1100 MHz and boost at 1183 MHz, while the RX 6500M starts at 2000 MHz base and boosts to 2400 MHz, with a game clock of 2191 MHz.

Memory architecture also diverges significantly. The RX 550 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus delivering 112.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6500M, despite having a narrower 64-bit bus, uses faster GDDR6 memory with a 4 GB capacity, achieving 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6500M also introduces 16 ray tracing cores, a feature completely absent from the RX 550. The API support shows this generational leap: the RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the RX 6500M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, compared to the RX 550's Vulkan 1.3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison data between these two GPUs is limited to two Geekbench tests, but the results are decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6500M scores 38,586 against the RX 550's 11,063, yielding a deltaPct of -71.3% (meaning the RX 550 is 71.3% slower). This is a massive 3.5x performance advantage for the newer mobile GPU. The Vulkan test tells a similar story: the RX 6500M scores 43,837 versus 12,270 for the RX 550, with a deltaPct of -72%. These results indicate that in raw compute throughput, the RX 6500M is in a completely different performance class.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the RX 550's individual scores include a Geekbench Metal result of 20,838 and a 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 score of 127. The RX 6500M's Passmark results show a G3D score of 7,531, a G2D score of 385, and compute scores ranging from 34 in DirectX 12 to 92 in DirectX 9. The RX 6500M's highest Passmark score is in DirectX 11 at 70. While these tests are not directly comparable across the two cards, they paint a picture of the RX 6500M being optimized for modern workloads. The RX 550's nearest rival, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, has an average score of 11,088 (just 0.1% higher), while the RX 6500M's closest competitor, the NVIDIA Tesla C2075, scores 10,400 (0.4% lower), showing both cards sit in a similar overall performance tier despite their architectural differences.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal fundamental differences in nearly every major component. The process node differs as noted, with the RX 550 at 14 nm versus the RX 6500M at 6 nm. The transistor count is more than double for the RX 6500M (5,400 million vs. 2,200 million), and the transistor density is 50.5M/mm² versus 21.4M/mm². Clock speeds are dramatically higher on the RX 6500M: base clock of 2000 MHz versus 1100 MHz, boost of 2400 MHz versus 1183 MHz, and the RX 6500M adds a game clock of 2191 MHz that the RX 550 lacks.

Memory configuration is another major divergence. The RX 550 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6500M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, achieving 144.0 GB/s bandwidth despite the narrower bus. The compute unit counts scale accordingly: the RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the RX 6500M doubles all of these to 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6500M also adds 16 ray tracing cores, which the RX 550 does not have.

The RX 550's pixel rate is 18.93 GPixel/s and texture rate is 37.86 GTexel/s, while the RX 6500M achieves 76.80 GPixel/s and 153.6 GTexel/s respectively. FP32 performance is 1,211.4 GFLOPS for the RX 550 versus 4.915 TFLOPS for the RX 6500M. The RX 6500M also offers FP16 at 9.830 TFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, whereas the RX 550 only manages 1,211.4 GFLOPS at 1:1. Both have a 50 W TDP, but the RX 550 is a dual-slot card with a 250 W suggested PSU, while the RX 6500M is an IGP form factor with no PSU requirement listed. The RX 550 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the RX 6500M uses PCIe 4.0 x4. Display outputs also differ: the RX 550 has DVI, HDMI 2.0b, and DisplayPort 1.4a, while the RX 6500M is "Portable Device Dependent."

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500M wins decisively in all areas where direct benchmark data exists. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 38,586 versus 11,063 is a 3.5x advantage, and its Vulkan score of 43,837 versus 12,270 is similarly dominant. This translates to clear wins in compute-heavy workloads like OpenCL-based physics simulations, machine learning inference, and Vulkan-based game engines. The RX 6500M's larger memory capacity (4 GB vs. 2 GB) and higher bandwidth (144.0 GB/s vs. 112.0 GB/s) also give it an edge in texture-heavy gaming scenarios and larger datasets.

The RX 550's wins are more subtle and relate to its desktop form factor and interface compatibility. As a dual-slot card with PCIe 3.0 x8, it can be installed in older desktop systems without requiring a PCIe 4.0 slot. Its display outputs (DVI, HDMI 2.0b, DisplayPort 1.4a) provide connectivity to a wide range of monitors, whereas the RX 6500M's outputs are dependent on the portable device it is integrated into. The RX 550's higher percentile rank (50th vs. 48th) and higher average benchmark score (11,075 vs. 10,362) suggest it performs better relative to its contemporaries, but this is likely due to the RX 6500M being compared against a field that includes much more powerful modern GPUs. The RX 550 also has a lower transistor density, which could imply simpler cooling requirements, though both are rated at 50 W TDP.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon RX 6500M is the superior performer in every measurable head-to-head benchmark. Its 71.3% advantage in OpenCL and 72% advantage in Vulkan over the RX 550 are overwhelming, and these results are consistent with the architectural differences. The RDNA 2.0 architecture, 6 nm process, higher clock speeds, double the shading units, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate position the RX 6500M as the clear choice for any workload that leverages modern APIs or compute acceleration. The 4 GB GDDR6 memory and 16 ray tracing cores further cement its advantage for contemporary gaming and content creation.

However, the RX 550 is not without its niche. As an end-of-life desktop card with a launch MSRP of 79 USD, it represents a simple, low-power solution for legacy systems that do not require high performance. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and multiple display outputs make it a practical drop-in upgrade for older desktop PCs. The RX 6500M, being an IGP with no standalone card form factor, is only available in portable devices, which limits its applicability to users who are not purchasing a new laptop. For any user choosing between these two as discrete options, the RX 6500M wins outright on performance, but the RX 550 remains a viable option only for those constrained to a desktop PCIe slot with modest performance needs. The benchmark data clearly favors the newer mobile architecture, but the use case determines which GPU is the right fit.