AMD Radeon RX 5600M vs AMD Radeon RX 6550M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M and AMD Radeon RX 5600M represent two distinct generations of AMD mobile graphics, with the newer RDNA 2.0 part facing off against the older RDNA 1.0 design. Benchmark data reveals a near-perfect tie in average scores—46,702 for the RX 6550M versus 46,601 for the RX 5600M—a difference of just 0.2%. This places both in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they sit at the same performance tier despite their architectural differences. The head-to-head results show each card claiming one victory, with the RX 5600M dominating in OpenCL while the RX 6550M edges ahead in Vulkan, making this a genuine split decision for laptop buyers.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M holds a marginal lead with an average score of 46,702, while the RX 5600M scores 46,601—a delta of just 0.2% separating the two.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The RX 5600M wins decisively in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 59,589 against the RX 6550M's 42,536, which represents a 28.6% advantage for the older card.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan workloads?

A: The RX 6550M takes the Vulkan test with a score of 50,867 versus 48,843 for the RX 5600M, a 4.1% margin in favor of the newer architecture.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The RX 5600M offers 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 288.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the RX 6550M has 4 GB on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No. The RX 6550M is marked as Active production status, while the RX 5600M is listed as End-of-life.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The RX 6550M runs at a 2000 MHz base and 2840 MHz boost, far exceeding the RX 5600M's 1035 MHz base and 1265 MHz boost clocks.

Architecture Differences

The RX 6550M uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 6 nm process with 5,400 million transistors packed into a 107 mm² die. The RX 5600M employs the Navi 10 chip with RDNA 1.0 architecture on a 7 nm process, containing 10,300 million transistors across a much larger 251 mm² die. This creates an interesting contrast: the newer chip achieves a transistor density of 50.5M per mm² versus 41.0M per mm² for the older design, yet the RX 5600M has nearly twice the raw transistor count.

Feature support differs significantly. The RX 6550M includes 16 dedicated ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the RX 5600M has no ray tracing cores and only reaches DirectX 12 (12_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but the RX 6550M's RDNA 2.0 architecture brings hardware-accelerated ray tracing that the RX 5600M simply cannot offer.

The compute configuration also diverges sharply. The RX 5600M fields 2304 shading units, 144 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units—roughly double the resource allocation of the RX 6550M, which has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite this, the theoretical FP32 throughput is nearly identical: 5.829 TFLOPS for the RX 5600M versus 5.816 TFLOPS for the RX 6550M. The RX 6550M compensates for fewer cores with dramatically higher clocks, achieving a 2000 MHz base and 2840 MHz boost compared to the RX 5600M's 1035 MHz base and 1265 MHz boost.

Memory architecture represents another fundamental difference. The RX 5600M uses a 192-bit bus with 6 GB of GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective, delivering 288.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6550M uses a 64-bit bus with 4 GB at 18 Gbps effective, yielding 144.0 GB/s—exactly half the bandwidth. The RX 6550M also connects via PCIe 4.0 x4, whereas the RX 5600M uses PCIe 4.0 x16, giving the older card four times the bus lanes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head tests tell a story of split dominance. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5600M posts a commanding victory with 59,589 points against the RX 6550M's 42,536—a 28.6% advantage. This result aligns with the RX 5600M's larger memory bus and double bandwidth, which benefit memory-intensive compute workloads. The RX 5600M's 2304 shading units also provide more parallel execution resources for OpenCL's general-purpose compute patterns.

Geekbench Vulkan reverses the outcome. Here, the RX 6550M wins with 50,867 points versus 48,843 for the RX 5600M, a 4.1% margin. This narrower victory suggests the RDNA 2.0 architecture's efficiency improvements and higher clock speeds matter more in graphics-oriented Vulkan workloads, even with fewer cores and half the memory bandwidth. The RX 6550M's ray tracing cores may also contribute to Vulkan performance in scenes that leverage hardware ray tracing, an advantage the RX 5600M lacks entirely.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, both GPUs land within a tight cluster of rivals. The RX 6550M's nearest competitor is the Intel Arc A530M at 46,614 (0.2% difference), followed by the RX 5600M at 46,601, the NVIDIA RTX A2000 at 46,043 (1.4%), and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45,972 (1.6%). The RX 5600M's rival list mirrors this, with the Intel Arc A530M at 46,614 (0% delta), the RX 6550M at 46,702 (-0.2%), the RTX A2000 at 46,043 (1.2%), and the RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45,972 (1.4%). Both cards effectively trade blows within a 2% performance band.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals stark contrasts between these two mobile GPUs. Process technology differs by one node generation: the RX 6550M uses 6 nm versus 7 nm for the RX 5600M, both from TSMC. Transistor counts diverge dramatically, with the RX 5600M containing 10,300 million versus 5,400 million for the RX 6550M, while die size flips the ratio—the RX 5600M measures 251 mm² against 107 mm² for the RX 6550M.

Clock speeds heavily favor the newer card. The RX 6550M's base clock of 2000 MHz exceeds the RX 5600M's 1035 MHz by nearly double, and its 2840 MHz boost towers over the 1265 MHz boost of the RX 5600M. Game clock shows a similar pattern: 2560 MHz for the RX 6550M versus 1190 MHz for the RX 5600M. Memory clocks also favor the RX 6550M at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) against 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) for the RX 5600M.

Memory capacity and bandwidth favor the RX 5600M. It offers 6 GB versus 4 GB, a 192-bit bus versus 64-bit, and 288.0 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s. The RX 6550M counters with 16 ray tracing cores where the RX 5600M has none. Power consumption differs substantially: TDP is 80 W for the RX 6550M and 150 W for the RX 5600M. Pixel rates run 90.88 GPixel/s for the RX 6550M versus 80.96 GPixel/s for the RX 5600M, while texture rates are nearly identical at 181.8 GTexel/s and 182.2 GTexel/s respectively. FP32 performance sits at 5.816 TFLOPS versus 5.829 TFLOPS, and FP16 at 11.63 TFLOPS versus 11.66 TFLOPS.

Release timing and status also differ. The RX 6550M launched on 2023-01-03 and remains Active in production, while the RX 5600M launched on 2020-07-06 and is now End-of-life. Both share the same predecessor (Polaris Mobile), no successor, no launch MSRP, IGP slot width, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

The Verdict

The data presents a genuine toss-up for most users. The RX 6550M offers modern features—ray tracing, DirectX 12 Ultimate, 6 nm efficiency, and a much lower 80 W TDP—while matching the RX 5600M's average score within 0.2%. The RX 5600M counters with double the memory capacity, quadruple the memory bandwidth, and a 28.6% OpenCL advantage, but it costs 70 W more in power and lacks any ray tracing support.

Builders prioritizing battery life and modern API support should choose the RX 6550M. Its 80 W TDP versus 150 W makes a substantial difference in laptop thermal design and battery endurance. The 4.1% Vulkan win also indicates better performance in modern graphics APIs. However, users running compute-heavy OpenCL workloads or needing more than 4 GB of VRAM for larger textures and datasets will find the RX 5600M significantly more capable, with its 6 GB frame buffer and 288.0 GB/s bandwidth proving decisive.

The RX 5600M's End-of-life status raises availability concerns, while the RX 6550M remains Active. For new laptop purchases, the RX 6550M's combination of modern features, lower power draw, and active production status makes it the more future-proof option, despite the RX 5600M's raw compute superiority. The verdict hinges on workload: OpenCL compute and VRAM capacity favor the RX 5600M; modern gaming, efficiency, and ray tracing favor the RX 6550M.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon RX 6550M wins in:

• Vulkan graphics performance, leading by 4.1% (50,867 versus 48,843)
• Ray tracing capability with 16 dedicated cores
• Power efficiency at 80 W TDP versus 150 W
• Clock speeds, with 2840 MHz boost versus 1265 MHz
• Production status as an Active, current-gen product
• Process technology at 6 nm versus 7 nm

AMD Radeon RX 5600M wins in:

• OpenCL compute, dominating by 28.6% (59,589 versus 42,536)
• Memory capacity at 6 GB versus 4 GB
• Memory bandwidth at 288.0 GB/s versus 144.0 GB/s
• Shading units, TMUs, and ROPs at roughly double the count
• PCIe interface with x16 lanes versus x4
• Theoretical FP32 throughput at 5.829 TFLOPS versus 5.816 TFLOPS

The practical takeaway: the RX 6550M suits gamers and users of modern APIs who value efficiency and ray tracing, while the RX 5600M serves compute-heavy tasks and workloads that demand more VRAM. Each card wins where its architecture is strongest, and the 1-1 split in head-to-head tests confirms that neither is a universal victor.