AMD Radeon RX 6650M vs Intel Arc A550M Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon RX 6650M is the decisive winner in this comparison. Benchmark results show it ahead in both recorded tests, with an average benchmark score of 71,768 versus 49,737 for the Intel Arc A550M. The RX 6650M claims 2 wins out of 2 head-to-head tests, while the Arc A550M records 0 wins.

For users seeking maximum raw performance in a mobile GPU, the RX 6650M is the clear choice. Its OpenCL score of 65,800 and Vulkan score of 77,735 place it in the 91st percentile among all GPUs, while the Arc A550M sits at the 86th percentile. The RX 6650M also sits close to the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal (0.5% behind) and AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 (0.8% behind) in average score, indicating it trades blows with desktop-class hardware from earlier generations.

The Intel Arc A550M is not without merit. It operates at a 60 W TDP, half that of the RX 6650M's 120 W, making it a more power-efficient option for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and thermal headroom matter more than peak frame rates. Users who prioritize efficiency over absolute performance should consider the Arc A550M, but the data shows a substantial performance gap that power savings may not fully justify for gaming or compute-heavy workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon RX 6650M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on the Navi 23 chip, part of the Navi Mobile (RX 6000M) generation. The Intel Arc A550M uses the Xe-HPG architecture on the DG2-512 chip, part of the Alchemist (Arc 5 Mobile) generation.

Manufacturing processes differ. The RX 6650M is built on a 7 nm process at TSMC, while the Arc A550M uses a 6 nm process, also at TSMC. The Intel chip is substantially larger, with a die size of 406 mm² and 21,700 million transistors, compared to the AMD chip's 237 mm² and 11,060 million transistors. Transistor density favors the Intel chip at 53.4M per mm² versus 46.7M per mm² for AMD.

Core configurations differ notably. The RX 6650M has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Arc A550M has more shading units at 2,048, more TMUs at 128, and the same 64 ROPs. However, ray tracing hardware differs: the AMD chip has 28 ray tracing cores, while the Intel chip has 16. Neither GPU includes tensor cores.

Clock speeds favor AMD significantly. The RX 6650M has a base clock of 2068 MHz and a boost clock of 2416 MHz, with a game clock of 2222 MHz. The Arc A550M has a base clock of just 900 MHz and a boost clock of 2050 MHz, with no game clock specified. Memory clocks are identical at 1750 MHz with 14 Gbps effective speed.

Both GPUs feature 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding the same 224.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both support PCIe 4.0, but the RX 6650M uses an x8 interface while the Arc A550M uses x16. Both are integrated into the laptop (IGP slot width) with portable-device-dependent display outputs. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6650M scores 71,768 on average, compared to 49,737 for the Intel Arc A550M, a difference of 22,031 points.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The RX 6650M scores 77,735 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 56.8% higher than the Arc A550M's 49,580.

Q: Does the Intel Arc A550M have any advantage in power consumption?

A: Yes. The Arc A550M has a 60 W TDP, while the RX 6650M has a 120 W TDP. The Intel chip draws half the power of the AMD chip.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same memory configuration?

A: Yes. Both have 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth and the same 14 Gbps effective memory speed.

Q: Which GPU has more ray tracing cores?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6650M has 28 ray tracing cores, while the Intel Arc A550M has 16.

Q: What is the production status of these GPUs?

A: Both are listed as end-of-life products in the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6650M | Intel Arc A550M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | Xe-HPG |

| Chip | Navi 23 | DG2-512 |

| Process node | 7 nm | 6 nm |

| Transistors | 11,060 million | 21,700 million |

| Die size | 237 mm² | 406 mm² |

| Transistor density | 46.7M / mm² | 53.4M / mm² |

| Base clock | 2068 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost clock | 2416 MHz | 2050 MHz |

| Game clock | 2222 MHz | None |

| Shading units | 1792 | 2048 |

| TMUs | 112 | 128 |

| ROPs | 64 | 64 |

| Ray tracing cores | 28 | 16 |

| TDP | 120 W | 60 W |

| Bus interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |

| Pixel rate | 154.6 GPixel/s | 131.2 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 270.6 GTexel/s | 262.4 GTexel/s |

| FP32 performance | 8.659 TFLOPS | 8.397 TFLOPS |

| FP16 performance | 17.32 TFLOPS (2:1) | 16.79 TFLOPS (2:1) |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD Radeon RX 6650M scores 65,800 against the Intel Arc A550M's 49,894, a delta of 31.9% in favor of AMD. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin widens: the RX 6650M scores 77,735 versus 49,580 for the Arc A550M, a 56.8% advantage.

The Vulkan result is particularly telling. A 56.8% lead indicates that the RX 6650M's architectural efficiency and higher clock speeds translate into substantially better performance in modern graphics APIs. The Arc A550M's larger core count (2,048 versus 1,792 shading units) does not compensate for its much lower base clock of 900 MHz, which is less than half the RX 6650M's 2068 MHz base clock.

The OpenCL result, while still a clear AMD victory, shows a narrower gap. This suggests that the Arc A550M's compute throughput is relatively stronger in general-purpose workloads, which aligns with its higher TMU count (128 versus 112) and larger transistor budget. However, the RX 6650M still maintains a 31.9% lead in this test.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the RX 6650M's average score of 71,768 places it within 2.2% of the AMD Radeon Vega Frontier Edition (73,370) and 1.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6600 LE (70,829). It trails the NVIDIA TITAN X Pascal by only 0.5% and the AMD Radeon Pro Vega 64 by 0.8%. This positions the RX 6650M as a mobile GPU that performs at the level of high-end desktop cards from previous generations.

The Arc A550M's average score of 49,737 places it within 0.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti (49,957) and 0.5% of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 (50,001). It sits 2.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT (50,951) and 2.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT (48,477). This puts the Arc A550M in a different performance tier, roughly 44% below the RX 6650M's average score.

The FP32 compute figures reinforce this gap. The RX 6650M delivers 8.659 TFLOPS versus 8.397 TFLOPS for the Arc A550M, a modest 3% difference that does not fully explain the much larger benchmark deltas. The RX 6650M also leads in pixel rate (154.6 GPixel/s versus 131.2 GPixel/s) and texture rate (270.6 GTexel/s versus 262.4 GTexel/s).

The power efficiency story favors Intel. At 60 W, the Arc A550M delivers 8.397 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, translating to roughly 140 GFLOPS per watt. The RX 6650M at 120 W delivers 8.659 TFLOPS, roughly 72 GFLOPS per watt. For laptops where battery life is critical, the Arc A550M offers a compelling efficiency profile, but it comes at a significant cost in absolute performance.

The RX 6650M's release date of January 2022 places it earlier in the mobile GPU market, and its predecessor is listed as Polaris Mobile. The Arc A550M has no recorded release date or predecessor in the database. Both GPUs are end-of-life, meaning neither is currently in active production.

For buyers choosing between these two in the used or clearance market, the data is clear: the RX 6650M delivers substantially higher performance in both OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, with a 31.9% and 56.8% lead respectively. The Arc A550M's only advantage is its 60 W TDP, which may appeal to users building or buying ultra-portable systems where power draw is the primary constraint. For gaming, content creation, or any performance-sensitive task, the RX 6650M is the superior choice based on every available benchmark metric.