AMD Radeon RX 6550M vs NVIDIA Quadro GV100 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data splits these two GPUs into entirely different performance tiers, but the more interesting story is how their architectures shape the type of work each one handles. The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 wins both head-to-head benchmark entries in the database, and the margin is substantial. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro GV100 scores 150004 against the AMD Radeon RX 6550M’s 42536, a delta of negative 71.6 percent for the AMD part. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro GV100 posts 139526 versus 50867, a delta of negative 63.5 percent. These are not close contests.

But the wins are not just about raw score gaps. The Quadro GV100 sits in the 80th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the RX 6550M sits higher at the 85th percentile. This is curious because the RX 6550M has a lower average benchmark score (46702) than the Quadro GV100’s average (35520). The percentile ranking tells a different story: the RX 6550M’s average score places it above more of the GPU population, likely because its two benchmark results are relatively consistent, whereas the Quadro GV100’s average is dragged down by its Passmark scores, which are extremely low for a GPU of its compute capability.

The Quadro GV100 wins clearly in compute-heavy workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 150004 is nearly 3.5 times the RX 6550M’s 42536. Its Vulkan score of 139526 is more than 2.7 times the RX 6550M’s 50867. This suggests the GV100 is built for tasks that stress raw parallel throughput, which aligns with its massive shading unit count of 5120 and tensor core count of 640. The RX 6550M, with only 1024 shading units, is not in the same league for pure compute density.

Where the RX 6550M wins is in efficiency and integration. It is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a TDP of 80 W, while the Quadro GV100 is a dual-slot card with a TDP of 250 W and requires a 600 W suggested PSU. The RX 6550M uses a 6 nm process node from TSMC, whereas the Quadro GV100 uses a 12 nm node. The RX 6550M has no power connectors, while the Quadro GV100 needs a single 8-pin connector. For portable devices, the RX 6550M is clearly the intended fit: its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning it is designed for laptops. The Quadro GV100 is a workstation card with four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a 267 mm length, and a dual-slot footprint.

In terms of API support, the RX 6550M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the Quadro GV100 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4. The RX 6550M also has 16 ray tracing cores, while the Quadro GV100 has none. This means the RX 6550M is the only one of the two that can handle hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature that matters in modern gaming and some professional visualization workloads.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is clear for two different audiences. If the workload is compute-heavy professional rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference, the Quadro GV100 is the only rational pick. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 150004 is over three times the RX 6550M’s 42536, and its Vulkan score of 139526 more than doubles the RX 6550M’s 50867. The GV100 also has 32 GB of HBM2 memory with 868.4 GB/s of bandwidth, versus 4 GB of GDDR6 with 144.0 GB/s on the RX 6550M. For datasets that exceed a few gigabytes, the RX 6550M simply cannot hold them in memory.

If the workload is mobile gaming, ray tracing, or any task that requires DirectX 12 Ultimate features, the RX 6550M is the better match. It has 16 ray tracing cores, supports DirectX 12_2, runs on 80 W, and is an IGP with no external power connector. The Quadro GV100 cannot do hardware ray tracing and is a 250 W dual-slot card with a 267 mm length. The RX 6550M also has a higher percentile ranking (85th versus 80th), meaning its average score of 46702 outperforms a larger share of the GPU population than the GV100’s 35520.

But there is a nuance: the Quadro GV100 is end-of-life, while the RX 6550M is active in production. The GV100’s successor is listed as Quadro Turing. Its release date is 2018, while the RX 6550M launched in 2023. For new system builds, the RX 6550M has a longer expected availability. The GV100 also has a launch MSRP of 8,999 USD, which the database records, but no further pricing commentary is needed.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The RX 6550M is built on RDNA 2.0, AMD’s gaming-focused architecture, using the Navi 24 chip. The Quadro GV100 is built on Volta, NVIDIA’s compute-focused architecture, using the GV100 chip. The process nodes differ dramatically: the RX 6550M uses a 6 nm TSMC node, while the Quadro GV100 uses a 12 nm TSMC node. This node difference is reflected in transistor density: the RX 6550M packs 50.5 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Quadro GV100 has 25.9 million per square millimeter.

The physical scale is also opposite. The RX 6550M has 5,400 million transistors on a 107 mm² die. The Quadro GV100 has 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die. That is nearly four times the transistor count and over seven times the die area. The GV100 is a massive chip designed for maximum compute throughput, while the Navi 24 is a small, efficient chip for mobile integration.

Memory architectures diverge completely. The RX 6550M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 144.0 GB/s. The Quadro GV100 uses 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus, delivering 868.4 GB/s. The memory clock differs: the RX 6550M runs at 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective), while the GV100 runs at 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective). The HBM2’s wide bus compensates for its lower clock speed, yielding far higher bandwidth.

Compute resources are also lopsided. The Quadro GV100 has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 128 ROPs, and 640 tensor cores. The RX 6550M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, and 16 ray tracing cores but no tensor cores. The GV100’s FP32 throughput is 16.66 TFLOPS versus 5.816 TFLOPS for the RX 6550M. FP16 on the GV100 is 33.32 TFLOPS (2:1), while the RX 6550M offers 11.63 TFLOPS (2:1). The GV100 also has higher pixel rate (208.3 GPixel/s) and texture rate (520.6 GTexel/s) compared to the RX 6550M’s 90.88 GPixel/s and 181.8 GTexel/s.

The RX 6550M supports PCIe 4.0 x4, while the Quadro GV100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The RX 6550M’s interface is narrower but newer. The GV100’s bus interface is older but wider, which may matter for data transfer in compute workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The Quadro GV100. Its Geekbench OpenCL score is 150004 versus 42536 for the RX 6550M, and its FP32 throughput is 16.66 TFLOPS versus 5.816 TFLOPS.

Q: Does the RX 6550M support ray tracing?

A: Yes. It has 16 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Quadro GV100 has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The RX 6550M has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 144.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU is more efficient per watt?

A: The RX 6550M has an 80 W TDP and is an IGP with no power connectors. The Quadro GV100 has a 250 W TDP, requires a 600 W suggested PSU, and uses a single 8-pin power connector.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The RX 6550M is listed as Active, while the Quadro GV100 is End-of-life. The GV100’s successor is Quadro Turing.

Q: Which GPU has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The RX 6550M ranks in the 85th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro GV100 ranks in the 80th percentile, despite the GV100 having higher raw benchmark scores in the head-to-head tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct benchmark comparisons between these GPUs, and the Quadro GV100 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GV100 scores 150004 against the RX 6550M’s 42536. The delta is negative 71.6 percent for the RX 6550M, meaning the AMD part trails by over 70 percent. This is a massive gap, not a marginal one. The OpenCL workload likely stresses raw compute and memory bandwidth, both of which are heavily in the GV100’s favor: it has 5120 shading units versus 1024, and 868.4 GB/s bandwidth versus 144.0 GB/s.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the GV100 scores 139526 against the RX 6550M’s 50867, a delta of negative 63.5 percent. The margin is slightly smaller than OpenCL, but still overwhelming. Vulkan is a lower-level API, and the RX 6550M’s newer architecture (RDNA 2.0) may narrow the gap compared to OpenCL, but it cannot overcome the GV100’s sheer compute resource advantage.

The RX 6550M’s wins are not in these head-to-head tests. Instead, they appear in its percentile rank and its feature set. The RX 6550M’s average benchmark score of 46702 is higher than the GV100’s 35520, despite losing both direct comparisons. This is because the GV100’s Passmark scores are very low: its Passmark DirectX 10 score is 140, DirectX 11 is 168, DirectX 12 is 84, DirectX 9 is 207, G2D is 836, G3D is 19650, and GPU compute is 9069. These scores pull its average down. The RX 6550M only has two benchmark entries, both Geekbench, and both are relatively strong for its tier.

The data suggests that the GV100 is a specialist for compute-heavy APIs, while the RX 6550M is more balanced across the benchmarks it appears in. If a user only cares about Geekbench OpenCL or Vulkan, the GV100 is the clear winner. If a user cares about overall average performance across a broader benchmark suite, the RX 6550M has the higher average, though it is based on fewer data points.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every specification field recorded. The process node is 6 nm for the RX 6550M versus 12 nm for the Quadro GV100. Transistor count is 5,400 million versus 21,100 million. Die size is 107 mm² versus 815 mm². Transistor density is 50.5M per mm² versus 25.9M per mm².

Clocks differ significantly. The RX 6550M has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost of 2840 MHz, with a game clock of 2560 MHz. The Quadro GV100 has a base clock of 1132 MHz and a boost of 1627 MHz, with no game clock listed. Memory clocks are 2250 MHz (18 Gbps effective) for the RX 6550M versus 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective) for the GV100.

Memory configuration is opposite in scale: 4 GB GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus versus 32 GB HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus. Bandwidth is 144.0 GB/s versus 868.4 GB/s. Shading units are 1024 versus 5120, TMUs are 64 versus 320, and ROPs are 32 versus 128. The RX 6550M has 16 ray tracing cores and zero tensor cores, while the GV100 has zero ray tracing cores and 640 tensor cores.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the GV100’s advantage: 208.3 GPixel/s and 520.6 GTexel/s versus 90.88 GPixel/s and 181.8 GTexel/s. FP32 is 16.66 TFLOPS versus 5.816 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 33.32 TFLOPS versus 11.63 TFLOPS (both at 2:1 ratio).

Power and form factor are completely different. The RX 6550M has an 80 W TDP, is an IGP, and has no power connectors. The Quadro GV100 has a 250 W TDP, is dual-slot, uses a single 8-pin connector, and has a suggested PSU of 600 W. The GV100 measures 267 mm by 111 mm. The RX 6550M has no listed dimensions.

Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x4 for the RX 6550M versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GV100. Display outputs: portable device dependent for the RX 6550M versus four DisplayPort 1.4a for the GV100. DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) for the RX 6550M versus 12 (12_1) for the GV100. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Production status: Active for the RX 6550M, End-of-life for the GV100. Release dates are 2023 for the RX 6550M and 2018 for the GV100. Predecessors are Polaris Mobile and Quadro Pascal, respectively. The GV100’s successor is Quadro Turing; the RX 6550M has no successor listed. The GV100 has a launch MSRP of 8,999 USD, while the RX 6550M has none recorded.