AMD Radeon RX 6550M vs Intel Arc A380E Comparison

AMD Radeon RX 6550M vs Intel Arc A380E

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M and Intel Arc A380E occupy different corners of the mobile and embedded graphics market, with the RX 6550M clearly positioned for performance while the A380E focuses on a specific niche. The data shows a significant gap in benchmark presence, as the RX 6550M holds an average benchmark score of 46,702 and sits in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the A380E has no recorded benchmark scores and rests in the 50th percentile. This difference alone signals that the two cards serve entirely different purposes.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6550M wins decisively in raw compute performance across every measurable category. Its recorded benchmarks show a Geekbench OpenCL score of 42,536 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 50,867, while the A380E has zero recorded scores in the database. The RX 6550M also wins on compute throughput, delivering 5.816 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.63 TFLOPS FP16, compared to the A380E’s 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16. That represents a roughly 42% advantage in FP32 and a 42% advantage in FP16 for the AMD part.

The A380E wins in the areas of memory capacity and connectivity. It carries 6 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 96-bit bus, yielding 186.0 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the RX 6550M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, giving 144.0 GB/s. The A380E also provides four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the RX 6550M’s display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The A380E is a single-slot card with a 254 mm length, while the RX 6550M is an integrated graphics package with no expansion slot.

The production status also differs, with the RX 6550M listed as active and the A380E marked as end-of-life. This suggests the AMD card has ongoing availability and support, while the Intel part is being phased out in favor of its successor, Battlemage.

Architecture Differences

The RX 6550M uses the Navi 24 chip based on RDNA 2.0 architecture, built on a 6 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 50.5 million per mm². The A380E uses the DG2-128 chip based on Xe-HPG architecture, also on a 6 nm process at TSMC, but with 7,200 million transistors on a larger 157 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 45.9 million per mm².

Both cards have 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output units. The RX 6550M has 16 ray tracing cores, while the A380E has only 8. Neither card has tensor cores listed in the database. The memory clocks differ, with the RX 6550M running at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) and the A380E at 1937 MHz (15.5 Gbps effective).

The bus interface separates them, with the RX 6550M using PCIe 4.0 x4 and the A380E using PCIe 4.0 x8. The A380E’s wider interface aligns with its role as a standalone card, while the RX 6550M’s narrower interface suits its integrated mobile design. The power profiles also differ, with the RX 6550M rated at 80 W TDP and the A380E at 75 W TDP, though the A380E lists a suggested PSU of 250 W while the RX 6550M has no suggested PSU listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M delivers 5.816 TFLOPS FP32 and 11.63 TFLOPS FP16, while the Intel Arc A380E provides 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 and 8.192 TFLOPS FP16. The RX 6550M holds a 42% advantage in both metrics.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The A380E has 6 GB of GDDR6 on a 96-bit bus with 186.0 GB/s bandwidth. The RX 6550M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The A380E offers both more capacity and higher bandwidth.

Q: What are the recorded benchmark scores for each GPU?

A: The RX 6550M has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 42,536 and a Geekbench Vulkan score of 50,867, with an average benchmark score of 46,702. The A380E has no recorded benchmark scores in the database.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The RX 6550M has 16 ray tracing cores, while the A380E has 8. This gives the AMD part twice the ray tracing hardware.

Q: What are the physical differences between the two cards?

A: The RX 6550M is an integrated graphics package (IGP) with no slot width and no power connectors. The A380E is a single-slot card measuring 254 mm in length, 127 mm in height, and 20 mm in width, with four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The RX 6550M is listed as active, while the A380E is end-of-life with Battlemage listed as its successor.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on multiple specification fields. The RX 6550M uses the Navi 24 chip with RDNA 2.0 architecture, while the A380E uses DG2-128 with Xe-HPG architecture. The RX 6550M has 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die, while the A380E has 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die. Transistor density favors the AMD part at 50.5 million per mm² versus 45.9 million per mm².

Clock speeds show the RX 6550M with a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2840 MHz, while the A380E has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 2000 MHz, meaning the Intel part does not boost above its base. The RX 6550M also lists a game clock of 2560 MHz, which the A380E lacks entirely.

Memory differs in size, bus width, and bandwidth: 4 GB versus 6 GB, 64-bit versus 96-bit, and 144.0 GB/s versus 186.0 GB/s. Pixel rate and texture rate also diverge, with the RX 6550M reaching 90.88 GPixel/s and 181.8 GTexel/s, while the A380E reaches only 64.00 GPixel/s and 128.0 GTexel/s.

The RX 6550M runs at 80 W TDP with no power connectors, while the A380E runs at 75 W TDP with no power connectors but lists a 250 W suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x4 for AMD and PCIe 4.0 x8 for Intel. The A380E has four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs, while the RX 6550M’s outputs depend on the portable device. Release dates differ, with the RX 6550M launched on 2023-01-03 and the A380E on 2024-03-31.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between these two GPUs. The RX 6550M does have its own recorded scores, while the A380E has none. The RX 6550M’s Geekbench OpenCL score of 42,536 and Vulkan score of 50,867 place it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 46,702.

Nearest rival data for the RX 6550M shows it sits close to several other cards. The Intel Arc A530M scores 46,614, which is 0.2% behind the RX 6550M. The AMD Radeon RX 5600M scores 46,601, also 0.2% behind. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 scores 46,043, which is 1.4% behind, and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation scores 45,972, which is 1.6% behind.

The A380E has no nearest rival data and no benchmark scores, so the comparison relies entirely on architectural specifications. The compute throughput gap is substantial, with the RX 6550M delivering 5.816 TFLOPS FP32 versus 4.096 TFLOPS for the A380E. The pixel rate difference is also notable, with the RX 6550M hitting 90.88 GPixel/s versus 64.00 GPixel/s for the A380E, a difference of about 42%. The texture rate follows the same pattern, with 181.8 GTexel/s for AMD versus 128.0 GTexel/s for Intel.

The A380E counters with memory advantages. Its 6 GB capacity exceeds the RX 6550M’s 4 GB by 50%. Its 186.0 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the RX 6550M’s 144.0 GB/s by about 29%. These memory advantages may help in workloads with large datasets that exceed 4 GB, but they do not compensate for the compute deficit in raw throughput.

The Verdict

The data separates these two GPUs cleanly by intended use case. The RX 6550M is the performance-oriented mobile part. Its active production status, 85th percentile ranking, and recorded benchmark scores of 42,536 in OpenCL and 50,867 in Vulkan demonstrate that it belongs in the competitive mobile graphics segment. Its nearest rivals, all within 1.6% of its average score, confirm that it sits in a well-populated performance tier.

The A380E is a different kind of product. Its end-of-life status, lack of benchmark scores, and 50th percentile ranking place it in the embedded or specialized market. The four DisplayPort 2.0 outputs and single-slot 254 mm form factor point to industrial or multi-display applications where compute performance matters less than connectivity and physical integration. Its 6 GB memory capacity and 186.0 GB/s bandwidth give it an edge in memory-heavy tasks, but its 4.096 TFLOPS FP32 throughput limits its computational ceiling.

For users seeking maximum compute performance in a mobile or compact form factor, the RX 6550M is the clear choice based on the recorded data. For applications requiring multiple display outputs and larger memory capacity in a standalone card, the A380E offers those specific advantages, though its end-of-life status suggests limited long-term viability. The RX 6550M’s active status and superior performance metrics make it the stronger overall product, while the A380E serves a narrow niche that prioritizes connectivity and capacity over raw speed.