AMD Radeon RX 6550M vs NVIDIA N1 16SM Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the AMD Radeon RX 6550M and the NVIDIA N1 16SM. The head-to-head benchmark field is empty, and neither product has wins recorded against the other in the database. This absence of direct comparison data is itself a significant finding, as it means any evaluation must rely on the separately recorded benchmark scores and architectural specifications.

The AMD Radeon RX 6550M has two recorded benchmark scores in the database. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 42536 points, while in Geekbench Vulkan it reaches 50867 points. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 46702 points. This places the RX 6550M at the 85th percentile among all GPUs in the database, indicating that it outperforms the vast majority of recorded graphics processors.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM, by contrast, has no benchmark scores recorded at all. Its average benchmark score is listed as 0, and it sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs. The absence of any benchmark entries for the N1 16SM means the database currently holds no performance measurements for this part. This is not a score of zero in a practical sense, but rather a complete lack of recorded data.

For context, the RX 6550M's nearest rivals in the database provide a useful reference frame. The Intel Arc A530M has an average score of 46614, which is 0.2% behind the RX 6550M. The AMD Radeon RX 5600M scores 46601, also 0.2% behind. The NVIDIA RTX A2000 averages 46043, trailing by 1.4%. The NVIDIA RTX 5880 Ada Generation averages 45972, which is 1.6% behind. These margins are narrow, indicating that the RX 6550M sits at the top of a tightly clustered performance group. The database shows the RX 6550M leading its closest rivals by less than two percent in every case, which suggests that benchmark noise or driver variation could easily reorder these positions.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two products is substantial. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M uses the Navi 24 chip built on RDNA 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA N1 16SM uses the GB20B chip with Blackwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 5 nm process, also at TSMC. The node difference is one nanometer, which is modest, but the architectural generations are far apart: RDNA 2.0 dates to AMD's previous-generation design philosophy, while Blackwell 2.0 represents NVIDIA's latest architecture.

The RX 6550M contains 5,400 million transistors on a die of 107 mm², yielding a transistor density of 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The N1 16SM has a die size of 382 mm², which is more than three and a half times larger, but its transistor count is listed as unknown in the database. The die size difference suggests that the N1 16SM is a much larger chip, though without the transistor count, the density comparison cannot be calculated.

Shader resources differ sharply. The RX 6550M has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The N1 16SM has 2048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and only 24 ROPs. The N1 16SM doubles the shading units and TMUs but has fewer ROPs, which is an unusual combination. Both parts have 16 ray tracing cores, but the N1 16SM also includes 64 tensor cores, a feature entirely absent from the RX 6550M.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different in capacity and type. The RX 6550M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The N1 16SM uses 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus, providing 273.2 GB/s. This is a 32-fold difference in capacity and nearly double the bandwidth. The memory clock rates also differ: the RX 6550M runs at 2250 MHz with 18 Gbps effective, while the N1 16SM runs at 1067 MHz with 8.5 Gbps effective. The N1 16SM compensates for its lower per-pin speed with a much wider bus.

Compute throughput numbers reflect the shader count differences. The RX 6550M delivers 5.816 TFLOPS of FP32 performance and 11.63 TFLOPS of FP16 via a 2:1 ratio. The N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS of FP32 and the same 9.609 TFLOPS of FP16, indicating a 1:1 ratio. The N1 16SM is roughly 65% ahead in FP32 throughput but does not gain the FP16 boost that the RX 6550M offers. Pixel fill rates favor the RX 6550M at 90.88 GPixel/s versus 56.30 GPixel/s for the N1 16SM, which aligns with the ROP count difference. Texture fill rates favor the N1 16SM at 300.3 GTexel/s versus 181.8 GTexel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6550M wins in areas tied to its clock speeds and ROP configuration. Its base clock is 2000 MHz with a boost of 2840 MHz, far above the N1 16SM's 741 MHz base and 2346 MHz boost. The RX 6550M also has a game clock of 2560 MHz, a figure the N1 16SM does not list at all. Higher clocks typically benefit latency-sensitive workloads, and the pixel rate advantage suggests the RX 6550M handles traditional rasterization output more efficiently despite its smaller memory bus.

The N1 16SM wins decisively in compute-heavy scenarios. Its FP32 throughput of 9.609 TFLOPS is substantially higher than the RX 6550M's 5.816 TFLOPS. The 2048 shading units and 128 TMUs provide raw geometry and texture processing headroom. The tensor cores, 64 in total, enable AI and machine learning workloads that the RX 6550M cannot accelerate at all, as it has no tensor core hardware. The 128 GB memory capacity and 273.2 GB/s bandwidth make the N1 16SM suitable for large dataset operations or high-resolution texture storage, whereas the RX 6550M's 4 GB capacity is restrictive for such tasks.

The interface also separates them. The RX 6550M uses PCIe 4.0 x4, a narrow connection that limits data transfer rates between the GPU and host system. The N1 16SM uses PCIe 5.0 x16, which provides a much wider and faster path. For workloads that stream data from system memory, this difference is meaningful.

The API support is a notable contrast. The RX 6550M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The N1 16SM lists DirectX as N/A, OpenGL as N/A, and Vulkan as N/A in the database. This suggests the N1 16SM currently lacks standard graphics API support in the recorded data, which would limit its use in conventional gaming or graphics applications.

Specification Differences

The two products differ in nearly every recorded specification field. The process node is 6 nm for the RX 6550M versus 5 nm for the N1 16SM. The RX 6550M has a known transistor count of 5,400 million, while the N1 16SM's count is unknown. Die size is 107 mm² versus 382 mm². Transistor density is 50.5M per mm² for the RX 6550M, with no value recorded for the N1 16SM.

Clock speeds show a clear divergence. The RX 6550M has a base clock of 2000 MHz, boost of 2840 MHz, and game clock of 2560 MHz. The N1 16SM has a base of 741 MHz and boost of 2346 MHz with no game clock listed. Memory clocks are 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the RX 6550M and 1067 MHz (8.5 Gbps effective) for the N1 16SM.

Memory capacity is 4 GB GDDR6 for the RX 6550M versus 128 GB LPDDR5X for the N1 16SM. Bus width is 64 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth is 144.0 GB/s versus 273.2 GB/s. Shading units are 1024 versus 2048. TMUs are 64 versus 128. ROPs are 32 versus 24. Ray tracing cores are 16 for both, but tensor cores are absent on the RX 6550M and present as 64 on the N1 16SM.

Pixel rate is 90.88 GPixel/s for the RX 6550M versus 56.30 GPixel/s for the N1 16SM. Texture rate is 181.8 GTexel/s versus 300.3 GTexel/s. FP32 is 5.816 TFLOPS versus 9.609 TFLOPS. FP16 is 11.63 TFLOPS (2:1) versus 9.609 TFLOPS (1:1). TDP is 80 W for the RX 6550M, while the N1 16SM's TDP is unknown. Both are IGP slot width with no power connectors. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x4 for the RX 6550M and PCIe 5.0 x16 for the N1 16SM. Display outputs are portable device dependent for the RX 6550M and 1x HDMI for the N1 16SM. Release dates are January 3, 2023 for the RX 6550M and May 31, 2026 for the N1 16SM.

FAQ

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

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6550M scores 42536 in Geekbench OpenCL and 50867 in Geekbench Vulkan, with an average benchmark score of 46702. The NVIDIA N1 16SM has no benchmark scores recorded, and its average benchmark score is listed as 0.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The RX 6550M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The N1 16SM has 128 GB of LPDDR5X on a 256-bit bus with 273.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA N1 16SM delivers 9.609 TFLOPS of FP32, while the AMD Radeon RX 6550M delivers 5.816 TFLOPS.

Q: What API support does each GPU list?

A: The RX 6550M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The N1 16SM lists DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan all as N/A.

Q: Do both GPUs have ray tracing capabilities?

A: Both have 16 ray tracing cores. The N1 16SM additionally has 64 tensor cores, while the RX 6550M has no tensor cores.

Q: What are the release dates for these products?

A: The RX 6550M was released on January 3, 2023. The N1 16SM has a release date of May 31, 2026.

The Verdict

The data shows two GPUs aimed at entirely different roles. The AMD Radeon RX 6550M is a conventional mobile graphics processor with full DirectX and Vulkan support, a high boost clock of 2840 MHz, and a compact 107 mm² die. Its benchmark scores place it at the 85th percentile, with its closest rival, the Intel Arc A530M, just 0.2% behind. For standard graphics workloads, gaming, and rasterization output, the RX 6550M is the only one of the two with recorded performance data to support its case.

The NVIDIA N1 16SM is a different class of product. Its 128 GB memory capacity, 273.2 GB/s bandwidth, 64 tensor cores, and 9.609 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput indicate a compute-oriented design rather than a graphics-focused one. The lack of API support in the database and the absence of any benchmark scores suggest that its primary function may not be conventional rendering. The PCIe 5.0 x16 interface and 256-bit bus point toward data movement and large-scale processing tasks.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward. Users who need proven graphics performance, standard API compatibility, and established driver support should select the RX 6550M, as it has measurable benchmark results and a high percentile ranking. Users who require massive memory capacity, tensor core acceleration, and higher raw compute throughput should select the N1 16SM, understanding that its performance has not yet been measured in the database. The RX 6550M wins on pixel rate at 90.88 GPixel/s and FP16 throughput at 11.63 TFLOPS. The N1 16SM wins on texture rate at 300.3 GTexel/s, memory bandwidth, and shader count. The choice depends entirely on which set of specifications aligns with the intended workload.