AMD Radeon RX 550X vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER Comparison

The benchmark data presents a stark generational contrast between the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER and the AMD Radeon RX 550X. While both cards target the entry-level segment, the performance gulf revealed by the available test results is immense, positioning the NVIDIA card in a completely different performance tier despite their similar market positioning.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two GPUs is limited to two compute-centric tests, yet the results are decisive and overwhelming. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER scores 43,875 points against the AMD Radeon RX 550X’s 9,662 points. This translates to a delta of 354.1% in favor of the NVIDIA card. To put that into perspective, the NVIDIA GPU is not merely faster; it is operating in a different computational league altogether. The AMD card’s score is less than a quarter of its rival’s output, indicating a fundamental chasm in raw compute throughput.

The Vulkan API test tells a similarly lopsided story. The GTX 1650 SUPER achieves a score of 50,519, while the RX 550X manages only 11,299. The performance delta here is 347.1% in favor of the NVIDIA card. This consistency across two different API environments—OpenCL and Vulkan—suggests that the advantage is not tied to a specific driver optimization or API quirk, but rather reflects a genuine and substantial hardware superiority. The data shows that in every head-to-head test available, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER wins decisively, securing 2 wins out of 2 possible comparisons.

When examining the broader benchmark landscape, the GTX 1650 SUPER’s average benchmark score is 11,047, placing it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 550, scores 11,075, a mere 0.2% difference. The RX 550X, in contrast, has an average score of 10,481, which places it at the 49th percentile. Its closest competitor, the NVIDIA Tesla C2075, scores 10,400, putting the RX 550X slightly ahead by 0.8%. This data reveals that while the GTX 1650 SUPER is positioned directly against the RX 550 (not the 550X) in the rankings, the RX 550X is wallowing in a lower performance tier, competing with much older or less capable hardware. The 566-point gap in average scores between the two cards in this comparison underscores the performance hierarchy.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER scores 50,519 points compared to the RX 550X’s 11,299 points, which represents a 347.1% performance advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card, and what does the percentile indicate?

A: The GTX 1650 SUPER has an average benchmark score of 11,047, placing it in the 50th percentile of all GPUs. The RX 550X has an average score of 10,481, placing it in the 49th percentile. This shows the NVIDIA card sits slightly higher in the overall performance distribution.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has a memory bandwidth of 192.0 GB/s, which is exactly double the 96.00 GB/s offered by the AMD Radeon RX 550X. This is a direct consequence of the faster GDDR6 memory on the NVIDIA card.

Q: What is the difference in shading units between the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA card contains 1,280 shading units, while the AMD card has only 512. This 768-unit difference is a primary factor in the NVIDIA card’s massive compute lead.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon RX 550X have a lower power consumption than the NVIDIA card?

A: Yes, the RX 550X has a TDP of 50 W, which is half of the GTX 1650 SUPER’s 100 W. The AMD card also does not require any power connectors, while the NVIDIA card requires a single 6-pin connector.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER has a pixel rate of 55.20 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the RX 550X’s 18.93 GPixel/s. This suggests the NVIDIA card is better suited for higher resolutions and more demanding pixel-shading workloads.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divergence between these two cards is profound and explains the performance disparity. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is built on the Turing architecture, specifically the TU116 chip, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This chip houses 6,600 million transistors on a 284 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 23.2M per mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon RX 550X is based on the older GCN 4.0 architecture, using the Lexa chip, which is manufactured by GlobalFoundries on a 14 nm process. The Lexa chip contains only 2,200 million transistors on a much smaller 103 mm² die, with a slightly lower transistor density of 21.4M per mm².

The implications of this architectural gap are significant. The Turing architecture brings modern features and efficiency improvements that are absent from the GCN 4.0 design. The GTX 1650 SUPER supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the RX 550X is limited to DirectX 12 (12_0). This feature-level difference can impact compatibility with certain advanced rendering techniques. Furthermore, the NVIDIA card supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the AMD card only supports Vulkan 1.3. The newer API versions on the NVIDIA card could offer better performance and more features in future titles.

The memory subsystems also reflect the generational leap. The GTX 1650 SUPER uses faster GDDR6 memory, while the RX 550X uses older GDDR5. This memory type difference, combined with the same 128-bit bus width, directly leads to the GTX 1650 SUPER achieving 192.0 GB/s bandwidth versus the RX 550X’s 96.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA card’s FP16 performance is listed as 8.832 TFLOPS (2:1), indicating a doubled rate compared to FP32, whereas the AMD card’s FP16 performance is identical to its FP32 at 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1). This suggests the NVIDIA GPU has dedicated hardware for half-precision compute, which can be beneficial in certain AI and compute workloads.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal a comprehensive advantage for the NVIDIA card across nearly every metric. The clock speeds differ, with the GTX 1650 SUPER running at a base clock of 1530 MHz and a boost clock of 1725 MHz, compared to the RX 550X’s base of 1100 MHz and boost of 1183 MHz. The memory clock is also different, with the NVIDIA card’s memory operating at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) versus the AMD card’s 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). This doubling of the effective memory speed is a key differentiator.

Core counts show a massive discrepancy. The GTX 1650 SUPER has 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The RX 550X has only 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 2.5x difference in shading units and TMUs, and a 2x difference in ROPs, directly translates into the performance gap seen in compute benchmarks. The pixel rate of the NVIDIA card is 55.20 GPixel/s versus 18.93 GPixel/s for the AMD card, and the texture rate is 138.0 GTexel/s versus 37.86 GTexel/s.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The GTX 1650 SUPER has a TDP of 100 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The RX 550X has a TDP of only 50 W, requires no power connectors, and has a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA card is longer at 229 mm (9 inches) compared to the AMD card’s 145 mm (5.7 inches). The bus interface also differs, with the NVIDIA card using PCIe 3.0 x16, while the AMD card uses the narrower PCIe 3.0 x8. The NVIDIA card also has a higher transistor count (6,600 million vs 2,200 million) and a larger die size (284 mm² vs 103 mm²).

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the superior product in this comparison. In the two direct head-to-head benchmarks, it wins by margins exceeding 347%, which is not a marginal victory but a complete rout. The average benchmark score of 11,047 for the NVIDIA card versus 10,481 for the AMD card further cements this conclusion, as does the NVIDIA card’s higher percentile ranking (50th vs 49th). The GTX 1650 SUPER offers more than double the shading units, double the memory bandwidth, and significantly higher pixel and texture rates.

The only area where the AMD Radeon RX 550X holds an advantage is in power consumption. Its 50 W TDP is half of the NVIDIA card’s 100 W, and it does not require any auxiliary power connectors, making it a simpler drop-in solution for pre-built systems with weak power supplies. The RX 550X is also significantly shorter at 145 mm, which could be beneficial for small-form-factor cases. However, these physical advantages come at the cost of a massive performance deficit that cannot be overlooked.

For any user prioritizing performance, the choice is clear. The GTX 1650 SUPER provides a level of compute and graphics capability that the RX 550X simply cannot match. The architecture is newer, the memory is faster, and the core configuration is far more robust. While the RX 550X is a more power-efficient and compact option, it is fundamentally a much weaker product. The benchmark results indicate that the GTX 1650 SUPER is the only sensible choice for gaming or any GPU-accelerated workload where performance matters.

Where Each One Wins

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is the definitive winner in compute-intensive tasks. Its massive lead in the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests—354.1% and 347.1% respectively—makes it the clear choice for applications that leverage these APIs for general-purpose computing, such as video encoding, machine learning inference, or physics simulations. Its higher pixel rate (55.20 GPixel/s) and texture rate (138.0 GTexel/s) also suggest it would be significantly better at traditional 3D rendering, even though no DirectX gaming benchmarks are available in this data set. The doubled memory bandwidth (192.0 GB/s) ensures that high-resolution textures and complex scenes will be handled with far greater fluidity.

The AMD Radeon RX 550X finds its niche in scenarios where power efficiency and physical footprint are paramount. With a TDP of just 50 W and no power connector requirement, it is the ideal candidate for office desktops, HTPCs, or legacy systems where the power supply is limited. Its compact 145 mm length allows it to fit into cases that cannot accommodate the 229 mm NVIDIA card. For tasks like basic 2D desktop acceleration, video playback, or light, non-demanding games, the RX 550X is adequate. However, the benchmark data clearly shows it is not a competitor for the GTX 1650 SUPER in any performance-oriented role. The choice is simple: the GTX 1650 SUPER for performance, and the RX 550X only for the most power-constrained and space-limited builds.