AMD Radeon RX 6550M vs Intel Arc B390 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two GPUs into entirely different performance classes. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M holds an average benchmark score of 46,702, placing it in the 85th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A530M at 46,614 (0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon RX 5600M at 46,601 (0.2% behind), the NVIDIA RTX A2000 at 46,043 (1.4% behind), and the NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation at 45,972 (1.6% behind). This puts the RX 6550M in a competitive bracket with established discrete mobile GPUs.

The Intel Arc B390, by contrast, averages 1,482 across its recorded benchmarks, sitting at the 9th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX at 1,463 (1.3% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce 800M at 1,460 (1.5% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 625 OEM at 1,446 (2.5% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 at 1,443 (2.7% behind). Those rivals are all legacy entry-level parts, which indicates the Arc B390's measured performance lands far below the RX 6550M.

In terms of raw arithmetic, the RX 6550M's average score is roughly 31.5 times higher than the Arc B390's average. That is not a close contest. The RX 6550M wins in every measurable benchmark category recorded in the database. The Arc B390 does not win any recorded benchmark comparison, and there are no head-to-head benchmark entries between the two. The use-case split is therefore simple: the RX 6550M is the faster part for any application that relies on the recorded workloads, while the Arc B390's data shows no performance advantage in any tested category.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different manufacturers, different foundries, and different design generations. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, belongs to the Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) generation, and is fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The die contains 5,400 million transistors across a 107 mm² area, yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel Arc B390 uses the Panther Lake chip built on Xe3-LPG architecture, belongs to the Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake) generation, and is fabricated on a 3 nm process at Intel. Intel has not disclosed the transistor count or die size for the B390, so those figures are unknown.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally. The RX 6550M has dedicated 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth with an effective 18 Gbps data rate. The Arc B390 has no dedicated memory at all; it uses system shared memory, with a system-dependent bus width and system-dependent bandwidth. This means the B390's memory performance cannot be stated as a fixed number, since it varies with the host platform.

Compute resources also differ. The RX 6550M carries 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, 32 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores. The Arc B390 carries more shading units at 1,536, but fewer texture mapping units at 48, fewer ROPs at 24, and fewer ray tracing cores at 12. The RX 6550M has no tensor core count listed, and the B390 also has no tensor core count listed. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so the API feature set is identical on paper.

Clock behavior differs substantially. The RX 6550M has a base clock of 2000 MHz, a boost clock of 2840 MHz, and a game clock of 2560 MHz. The Arc B390 has a base clock of just 300 MHz and a boost clock of 2500 MHz, with no game clock listed. The B390's very low base clock suggests a power management scheme heavily weighted toward short bursts at boost, but the recorded benchmark data shows that scheme does not produce competitive results.

Both parts are marked as integrated-class in slot width (IGP), both use no power connectors, and both are listed at 80 W TDP. The RX 6550M uses a PCIe 4.0 x4 bus interface, while the B390 uses an IGP bus interface, meaning it is integrated into the host processor package rather than connected through a standard PCIe slot.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark entries between the RX 6550M and the Arc B390, so the comparison relies on each part's individual recorded results. The RX 6550M has two benchmark entries: Geekbench OpenCL at 42,536 and Geekbench Vulkan at 50,867. Its average across those entries is 46,702. The Arc B390 has a single benchmark entry: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 1,482, which is also its average.

The strongest result for the RX 6550M is its Geekbench Vulkan score of 50,867. That represents a compute-heavy workload where the AMD part excels. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 42,536 is lower but still far above anything the B390 recorded. The B390's only recorded score, 1,482 in 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, cannot be directly mapped to Geekbench scores because they are different tests, but the percentile data provides the context: the RX 6550M sits at the 85th percentile while the B390 sits at the 9th percentile.

The nearest-rival data reinforces the gap. The RX 6550M's closest competitor, the Intel Arc A530M, scores 46,614, just 0.2% behind. The B390's closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX, scores 1,463, just 1.3% behind. These rival groups are separated by more than an order of magnitude in average score. No recorded measurement puts the B390 within striking distance of the RX 6550M.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts.

• Chip: Navi 24 (AMD) versus Panther Lake (Intel)
• Architecture: RDNA 2.0 versus Xe3-LPG
• Generation: Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) versus Arc Graphics-M (Panther Lake)
• Process node: 6 nm (TSMC) versus 3 nm (Intel)
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Transistors: 5,400 million versus unknown
• Die size: 107 mm² versus unknown
• Transistor density: 50.5 million per mm² versus not listed
• Base clock: 2000 MHz versus 300 MHz
• Boost clock: 2840 MHz versus 2500 MHz
• Game clock: 2560 MHz versus not listed
• Memory clock: 2250 MHz / 18 Gbps effective versus system shared
• Memory size: 4 GB GDDR6 versus system shared
• Memory type: GDDR6 versus system shared
• Memory bus width: 64 bit versus system shared
• Memory bandwidth: 144.0 GB/s versus system dependent
• Shading units: 1,024 versus 1,536
• Texture mapping units: 64 versus 48
• ROPs: 32 versus 24
• Ray tracing cores: 16 versus 12
• Pixel rate: 90.88 GPixel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 181.8 GTexel/s versus 120.0 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 5.816 TFLOPS versus 7.680 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: 11.63 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 15.36 TFLOPS (2:1)
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x4 versus IGP
• Release date: 2023-01-03 versus 2026-01-26
• Predecessor: Polaris Mobile versus not listed
• Average benchmark score: 46,702 versus 1,482
• Percentile vs all GPUs: 85 versus 9

Fields that match include TDP at 80 W, slot width at IGP, power connectors at none, DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.4, and production status of Active.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher peak compute throughput?

A: The Intel Arc B390 has the higher FP32 rating at 7.680 TFLOPS versus 5.816 TFLOPS for the AMD Radeon RX 6550M. It also leads in FP16 at 15.36 TFLOPS versus 11.63 TFLOPS.

Q: Why does the RX 6550M score so much higher in benchmarks if the B390 has higher TFLOPS?

A: The B390 has more shading units (1,536 versus 1,024) and higher theoretical FP32, but it uses system shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the RX 6550M has dedicated 4 GB GDDR6 with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The recorded benchmark results show the RX 6550M averaging 46,702 versus 1,482 for the B390, placing them at the 85th and 9th percentiles respectively.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Yes. Both list DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What memory does each GPU use?

A: The RX 6550M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Arc B390 uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M has 16 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc B390 has 12.

Q: Are both GPUs integrated or discrete?

A: Both are listed with a slot width of IGP and no power connectors. The RX 6550M uses a PCIe 4.0 x4 bus interface, while the B390 uses an IGP bus interface, indicating it is integrated into the host processor package.

The Verdict

The data separates these two parts cleanly. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M is the faster GPU by every recorded benchmark metric. Its average score of 46,702 places it at the 85th percentile, with nearest rivals like the Intel Arc A530M within 0.2% and the NVIDIA RTX A2000 within 1.4%. The Intel Arc B390 averages 1,482, placing it at the 9th percentile alongside legacy parts like the NVIDIA GeForce GT 520MX and GeForce GT 710. The B390's higher FP32 rating of 7.680 TFLOPS does not translate into competitive benchmark results, likely due to its system shared memory and the wider performance gap visible in the percentile data.

For any workload captured in the database, the RX 6550M is the appropriate choice. It delivers dedicated memory bandwidth of 144.0 GB/s, higher pixel and texture rates (90.88 GPixel/s and 181.8 GTexel/s versus 60.00 GPixel/s and 120.0 GTexel/s), and more ray tracing cores. The B390 offers more shading units and a smaller 3 nm process, but the measured results do not support selecting it for performance reasons. The B390's only recorded benchmark, 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 at 1,482, sits in a range where its nearest rivals are all NVIDIA parts from previous generations. The RX 6550M, by contrast, competes with current discrete mobile GPUs.

The release dates also matter for context. The RX 6550M launched on 2023-01-03 and the B390 on 2026-01-26. Despite shipping later and using a newer 3 nm Intel process, the B390 does not outperform the older AMD part in any recorded test. The B390's integrated memory architecture appears to be the limiting factor. A buyer choosing between these two for a portable device should prioritize the RX 6550M based on the benchmark data, unless the system integration requirements of the B390's IGP interface are the deciding factor. The data does not support any other conclusion.