AMD Radeon RX 5500M vs AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is decisively one-sided. Across all nine direct comparisons, the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT takes the win, leaving the RX 5500M without a single head-to-head victory. The margins, however, vary substantially by workload, and that variance tells the real story.

The largest gap appears in the DirectX 11 PassMark test, where the RX 6500 XT scores 90 against the RX 5500M's 35. That is a 61.1% advantage, the single biggest delta in the entire comparison. DirectX 11 remains relevant for a large library of older titles and lighter esports games, so this is not an insignificant result. The RX 6500 XT also dominates the DirectX 10 test at 60 versus 39, a 35% lead, and DirectX 9 at 108 versus 100, a narrower 7.4% margin.

Compute performance shows a similarly pronounced split. In the PassMark GPU compute test, the RX 6500 XT posts 4456 against 2316, a 48% lead. The Geekbench OpenCL result follows the same pattern: 48289 for the RX 6500 XT versus 38725 for the RX 5500M, a 19.8% gap. The 2D graphics test also favors the newer card heavily, with 815 versus 414, a 49.2% difference. This suggests the RX 6500 XT has a substantially stronger overall feature set beyond raw 3D rendering.

The Vulkan results are worth special attention. The RX 6500 XT scores 54724 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the RX 5500M manages 35693. That is a 34.8% lead. Vulkan is increasingly common in modern game engines and emulators, so this advantage carries real-world weight. The DirectX 12 test is closer, 38 versus 28, a 26.3% margin, but still firmly in the RX 6500 XT's favor.

The PassMark G3D score consolidates all DirectX results into one number, and the RX 6500 XT wins 9608 to 5848, a 39.1% overall 3D advantage. This composite metric aligns with the pattern seen across individual tests, the RX 6500 XT is consistently faster across every measured category.

The average benchmark score tells a slightly different story. The RX 5500M averages 13356 across its recorded tests, while the RX 6500 XT averages 11842. This apparent contradiction is a result of different benchmark suites being recorded for each card. The RX 5500M's average is buoyed by its Geekbench Metal score of 50359, a test that is not present in the RX 6500 XT's recorded data. The RX 6500 XT's direct comparisons, however, are all wins. The percentile rankings are close, with the RX 5500M at the 54th percentile of all GPUs and the RX 6500 XT at the 51st, but the head-to-head data is unambiguous.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT wins decisively, scoring 54724 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 35693 for the RX 5500M, a 34.8% advantage.

Q: Is the RX 6500 XT better in DirectX 11?

A: Yes, and by the largest margin of any test. The RX 6500 XT scores 90 in PassMark DirectX 11 against 35 for the RX 5500M, a 61.1% lead.

Q: Does the RX 5500M win any benchmark comparison?

A: No. The RX 6500 XT wins all nine head-to-head benchmark comparisons recorded in the database, with deltas ranging from 7.4% to 61.1%.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RX 5500M has a higher average benchmark score at 13356 versus 11842 for the RX 6500 XT. However, this is driven by a Geekbench Metal score of 50359 for the RX 5500M, a test not recorded for the RX 6500 XT. In all directly comparable tests, the RX 6500 XT wins.

Q: Are these cards in the same performance tier?

A: Their overall percentiles are close, 54th for the RX 5500M and 51st for the RX 6500 XT, and each sits near similar rivals. The RX 5500M's nearest rival is the AMD FirePro M6100 at a 0% delta, while the RX 6500 XT's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 at a 1% delta. Still, direct comparisons favor the RX 6500 XT in every test.

Q: What about compute performance?

A: The RX 6500 XT leads by 48% in PassMark GPU compute, scoring 4456 against 2316, and by 19.8% in Geekbench OpenCL, 48289 versus 38725.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations of AMD's RDNA architecture. The RX 5500M uses RDNA 1.0, built on TSMC's 7 nm process with the Navi 14 chip. The RX 6500 XT moves to RDNA 2.0, fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm node with the Navi 24 chip. The process shrink from 7 nm to 6 nm is a notable architectural progression, and it brings changes beyond just the node.

Transistor counts are surprisingly close. The Navi 14 chip in the RX 5500M packs 6,400 million transistors on a 158 mm² die, for a density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The Navi 24 in the RX 6500 XT has 5,400 million transistors on a smaller 107 mm² die, yielding a higher density of 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The RX 6500 XT therefore achieves more density with fewer total transistors, a direct benefit of the newer process node.

The RX 6500 XT introduces hardware ray tracing, a feature entirely absent from the RX 5500M. The Navi 24 chip includes 16 ray tracing cores, while the RX 5500M's RDNA 1.0 architecture has none. This is a generational feature gap, not just a clock speed difference. The RX 6500 XT also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2, whereas the RX 5500M is limited to DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The RX 5500M uses a 128-bit memory bus with 4 GB of GDDR6, delivering 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 6500 XT uses a narrower 64-bit bus, also with 4 GB of GDDR6, but only reaches 143.9 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a notable disadvantage for the RX 6500 XT in bandwidth-sensitive workloads, though its much higher clock speeds appear to compensate in the benchmark results.

The production timelines also reflect the generational split. The RX 5500M was released in 2019 and is classified as end-of-life, with the predecessor listed as Polaris Mobile. The RX 6500 XT launched in 2022, also end-of-life, with its predecessor listed as Navi and successor as Navi III. Both cards are at the end of their production lives, but they represent different points in AMD's architecture roadmap.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. Clock speeds show the most dramatic separation. The RX 5500M has a base clock of 1375 MHz, a game clock of 1448 MHz, and a boost clock of 1645 MHz. The RX 6500 XT runs far higher, with a base clock of 2310 MHz, a game clock of 2610 MHz, and a boost clock of 2815 MHz. The boost clock difference alone is over 1100 MHz.

Compute unit configuration also differs. The RX 5500M has 1408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The RX 6500 XT has fewer shading units at 1024, fewer TMUs at 64, but the same 32 ROPs. Despite fewer shading units, the RX 6500 XT achieves higher throughput thanks to its clocks. The FP32 performance is 5.765 TFLOPS for the RX 6500 XT against 4.632 TFLOPS for the RX 5500M, and FP16 is 11.53 TFLOPS versus 9.265 TFLOPS, both at a 2:1 ratio.

Memory clocks follow the same pattern. The RX 5500M runs memory at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed, while the RX 6500 XT runs at 2248 MHz with 18 Gbps effective. The RX 6500 XT's narrower 64-bit bus limits its bandwidth to 143.9 GB/s, well below the RX 5500M's 224.0 GB/s. Pixel and texture rates favor the RX 6500 XT: 90.08 GPixel/s versus 52.64 GPixel/s, and 180.2 GTexel/s versus 144.8 GTexel/s.

Power and physical characteristics differ as well. The RX 5500M has a TDP of 85 W and uses no power connectors, consistent with a mobile design. The RX 6500 XT has a TDP of 107 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and is a dual-slot card with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The RX 5500M's display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, while the RX 6500 XT offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. The RX 6500 XT is the only one with a listed launch MSRP, at 199 USD. The RX 5500M uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the RX 6500 XT uses PCIe 4.0 x4.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6500 XT wins every benchmark category in the direct comparison, so its strengths are broad rather than niche. The largest margins come in DirectX 11 at 61.1%, GPU compute at 48%, and 2D graphics at 49.2%. These results point to a card that is simply more capable across the board, with particular strength in legacy DirectX titles and compute-heavy applications. The 34.8% Vulkan advantage also makes it the better choice for modern Vulkan-based games and emulators.

The RX 6500 XT's higher pixel rate of 90.08 GPixel/s and texture rate of 180.2 GTexel/s, combined with its substantially higher boost clock of 2815 MHz, explain why it outperforms despite having fewer shading units and lower memory bandwidth. The 16 ray tracing cores give it an architectural feature the RX 5500M cannot match, and DirectX 12 Ultimate support makes it more future-proof for newer game engines.

The RX 5500M's strengths are more limited. Its higher memory bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s, enabled by the 128-bit bus, is its clearest specification advantage. In bandwidth-bound scenarios, this could narrow the gap, but the recorded benchmarks do not show any test where this translates into a win. Its lower TDP of 85 W and lack of power connectors make it more suited for thin-and-light mobile designs, where power draw is a primary constraint. The RX 6500 XT, at 107 W with a 6-pin connector, is a more power-hungry part that fits better in larger laptops or desktop systems.

For users running older DirectX 9 or DirectX 10 titles, the RX 6500 XT still wins, but by smaller margins of 7.4% and 35% respectively. The DirectX 12 gap of 26.3% is moderate. The RX 5500M's best relative performance is in DirectX 9, where the 7.4% gap is the closest any test comes to a tie.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT is the faster card in every directly comparable benchmark. It wins all nine head-to-head tests, with margins from 7.4% to 61.1%, and it brings architectural advantages in ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate support. The RX 5500M's higher memory bandwidth and lower power draw are real specification advantages, but they do not translate into any recorded benchmark win.

The RX 6500 XT is the better pick for users prioritizing raw performance, modern API support, and compute capability. Its 48% lead in GPU compute and 34.8% lead in Vulkan make it particularly attractive for workloads beyond pure gaming. The 61.1% DirectX 11 advantage is the single largest gap and matters for anyone with a library of older titles. The 16 ray tracing cores and DirectX 12 Ultimate feature level 12_2 support also give it a level of future-proofing that the RDNA 1.0-based RX 5500M simply lacks.

The RX 5500M still has a role for specific use cases. Its 85 W TDP and connector-free design make it the more practical choice for power-constrained mobile implementations, and its 128-bit memory bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth is a genuine advantage in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios. The RX 5500M also posts a higher average benchmark score of 13356, though that figure is influenced by its Geekbench Metal result, a test not recorded for the RX 6500 XT. Its percentile ranking of 54th against the RX 6500 XT's 51st suggests the two cards occupy a similar overall performance tier, but the direct measurements leave no ambiguity about which is faster in a head-to-head comparison.

For a builder choosing between these two, the RX 6500 XT is the straightforward recommendation whenever benchmarks matter more than power draw. The RX 5500M remains a reasonable choice only in scenarios where the lower TDP is a hard requirement and the performance deficit is acceptable. The RX 6500 XT is the stronger card by every measured metric.