AMD Radeon RX 550 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear, decisive victory for the AMD Radeon RX 550 over the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M in the two shared benchmark tests. The database includes results for Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the AMD part wins both.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon RX 550 scores 11,063 points against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M's 9,821 points. This translates to a 12.6% advantage for the RX 550. The margin is meaningful but not overwhelming; it suggests the RX 550 has a solid compute advantage in this API, likely due to its newer architecture and higher memory bandwidth.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is where the gap widens dramatically. The AMD Radeon RX 550 scores 12,270 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M manages only 8,782 points. That is a 39.7% delta in favor of the RX 550. This is a substantial lead, indicating that the RX 550 is far more efficient at handling Vulkan workloads, a scenario that often favors modern driver overhead and hardware design. The older Maxwell architecture in the GTX 850M appears to struggle significantly with this API.

Overall, the head-to-head tally is 2 wins for the AMD Radeon RX 550 and 0 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M. The average benchmark score in the database reflects this: the RX 550 sits at 11,075, while the GTX 850M trails at 9,302. That is a difference of roughly 1,773 points, or about 19% when expressed relative to the GTX 850M's score.

The percentile rankings also tell the story. The RX 550 lands in the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database, placing it squarely in the midrange of the sample. The GTX 850M, by contrast, sits at the 46th percentile. While both are near the middle of the pack, the RX 550's position is noticeably higher, reinforcing the benchmark results.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations and fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon RX 550 uses the Lexa chip, built on the GCN 4.0 architecture. It belongs to the Polaris (RX 500) generation. The process node is 14 nm, manufactured by GlobalFoundries. The die size is 103 mm², and it packs 2,200 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 21.4M per mm².

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M, on the other hand, uses the GM107 chip based on the Maxwell architecture, part of the GeForce 800M generation. It is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die is larger at 148 mm², but it contains fewer transistors: 1,870 million. That gives a transistor density of just 12.6M per mm², significantly lower than the AMD part. This density difference is a direct consequence of the older, less advanced manufacturing node.

Memory configuration is another clear differentiator. The RX 550 pairs its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. The GTX 850M also has 2 GB, but it uses DDR3 memory on the same 128-bit bus, resulting in a bandwidth of only 32.03 GB/s. That is a massive gap: the RX 550 has roughly 3.5 times the memory bandwidth of the GTX 850M. This likely explains why the Vulkan test showed such a large delta, as memory-bound workloads scale directly with bandwidth.

The compute resources differ in raw count but not in outcome. The GTX 850M actually has more shading units (640 vs 512), more texture mapping units (40 vs 32), and the same number of ROPs (16). However, the RX 550 still wins in measured throughput. The RX 550's pixel rate is 18.93 GPixel/s versus 14.43 GPixel/s for the GTX 850M. The texture rate is 37.86 GTexel/s versus 36.08 GTexel/s. And the FP32 performance is 1,211.4 GFLOPS versus 1,154.6 GFLOPS. Despite fewer cores, the RX 550's higher clocks and newer architecture deliver more work per clock.

The RX 550 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (1,211.4 GFLOPS), while the GTX 850M has no listed FP16 capability. Clock speeds are listed for the RX 550 (base 1100 MHz, boost 1183 MHz) but are absent for the GTX 850M in the database. The memory clock differs too: the RX 550 runs at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the GTX 850M runs at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective).

API support shows a key difference. The RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTX 850M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0), a lower feature level. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Interestingly, the GTX 850M lists Vulkan 1.4 support, while the RX 550 lists Vulkan 1.3. However, the benchmark data shows the RX 550 vastly outperforming the GTX 850M in Vulkan, so the older specification does not translate into slower real-world results.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the database benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 wins both shared tests. It leads by 12.6% in Geekbench OpenCL (11,063 vs 9,821) and by 39.7% in Geekbench Vulkan (12,270 vs 8,782).

Q: Why is the Vulkan score gap so large?

A: The RX 550 has a much higher memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s vs 32.03 GB/s) and a newer GCN 4.0 architecture. The GTX 850M's Maxwell design, paired with DDR3 memory, likely bottlenecks in API-heavy workloads.

Q: Does the GTX 850M have more cores?

A: Yes, the GTX 850M has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, compared to 512 shading units and 32 TMUs on the RX 550. Despite this, the RX 550 still achieves higher pixel and texture rates.

Q: What are the process nodes for each GPU?

A: The RX 550 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The GTX 850M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. The RX 550's smaller node allows for higher transistor density: 21.4M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm².

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory bus width?

A: Yes, both use a 128-bit bus. However, the RX 550 uses GDDR5 memory with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the GTX 850M uses DDR3 with only 32.03 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has better DirectX support?

A: The RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the GTX 850M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The RX 550's higher feature level means better compliance with modern game requirements.

Specification Differences

The key differences between the AMD Radeon RX 550 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M are as follows:

• Process Node: 14 nm (GlobalFoundries) vs 28 nm (TSMC)
• Transistors: 2,200 million vs 1,870 million
• Die Size: 103 mm² vs 148 mm²
• Transistor Density: 21.4M / mm² vs 12.6M / mm²
• Memory Type: GDDR5 vs DDR3
• Memory Bandwidth: 112.0 GB/s vs 32.03 GB/s
• Memory Clock: 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) vs 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective)
• Shading Units: 512 vs 640
• Texture Mapping Units: 32 vs 40
• Pixel Rate: 18.93 GPixel/s vs 14.43 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 37.86 GTexel/s vs 36.08 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 1,211.4 GFLOPS vs 1,154.6 GFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1) vs not listed
• TDP: 50 W vs 45 W
• Slot Width: Dual-slot vs IGP
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a vs Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_0) vs 12 (11_0)
• Vulkan Support: 1.3 vs 1.4
• Release Date: 2017-04-19 vs 2014-03-11
• Predecessor: Arctic Islands vs GeForce 700M
• Successor: Vega vs GeForce 900M

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 550 is the superior GPU in every measured benchmark. It wins both head-to-head tests, has a higher average score (11,075 vs 9,302), and sits at a higher percentile (50th vs 46th). The GTX 850M offers nothing in the database to counter this, despite having more shading units and a higher listed Vulkan version.

The RX 550's advantages stem from its newer architecture and vastly superior memory subsystem. The GDDR5 memory with 112.0 GB/s bandwidth is a transformative difference compared to the GTX 850M's DDR3 memory at 32.03 GB/s. For any task that relies on memory throughput, which includes most modern gaming and compute workloads, the RX 550 will pull ahead decisively.

The GTX 850M's only listed advantages are a slightly lower TDP (45 W vs 50 W) and a wider PCIe interface (x16 vs x8). Neither of these translates into a performance win in the recorded data. The lower TDP is marginal, and the PCIe width is irrelevant for a mobile-class GPU with 2 GB of memory.

For anyone choosing between these two, the RX 550 is the clear pick based on the database. It is not a close call. The 39.7% lead in Vulkan is particularly telling, as that API is increasingly common in modern games and applications.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 550 wins in both benchmark categories recorded: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In OpenCL, the margin is 12.6%, which is a solid but not crushing lead. This suggests the RX 550 is better for general compute tasks like physics simulation, video encoding, or other OpenCL-accelerated workloads. The advantage is real but not transformative.

In Vulkan, the RX 550's 39.7% lead is dominant. This makes it the obvious choice for Vulkan-based games and applications. The combination of higher memory bandwidth and a more modern architecture that handles driver overhead better gives it a substantial edge in this API. The GTX 850M's Vulkan score of 8,782 is low enough to suggest poor optimization or fundamental hardware limitations.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M does not win any shared benchmark in the database. Its only potential niche would be in scenarios not covered by the recorded tests. The database does not include DirectX or OpenGL benchmark scores for these two GPUs, so no conclusions can be drawn there. However, given the RX 550's superior DirectX feature level (12_0 vs 11_0) and higher memory bandwidth, it is reasonable to expect the RX 550 would also lead in those APIs, though the data does not confirm it.

The GTX 850M's lower TDP (45 W vs 50 W) makes it slightly more power-efficient on paper, which could matter in a thermally constrained laptop chassis. But the RX 550's 50 W TDP is still modest, and the performance delta is large enough that the extra 5 W is a non-factor for most users.

In summary, the RX 550 is the winner for OpenCL compute, the winner for Vulkan workloads, and the only GPU of the two that shows any competitive standing in the database. The GTX 850M's role is limited to legacy scenarios where its older driver stack or specific mobile platform constraints might favor it, but the recorded data offers no evidence of such an advantage.