AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT vs NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT than the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 in OpenCL?

A: The RX 6700 XT scores 44,152 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 116.7% ahead of the MX550’s 20,372. This is more than double the compute throughput.

Q: Which GPU wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The RX 6700 XT wins decisively, scoring 93,500 versus the MX550’s 32,469 in Geekbench Vulkan. That is a 188% delta, the largest gap between the two in any shared benchmark.

Q: Do both cards have the same percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: Yes, both sit at the 72nd percentile. Despite the massive performance gap, the MX550’s average benchmark score of 26,421 places it in the same percentile band as the RX 6700 XT’s 27,425 average.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The RX 6700 XT has 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus, while the MX550 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus. Memory bandwidth is 384.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The RX 6700 XT supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the MX550 supports DirectX 12 (12_1). The AMD card also has dedicated ray tracing cores (40), whereas the MX550 has none.

Q: Which card uses more power?

A: The RX 6700 XT has a 230 W TDP and requires a 550 W suggested PSU with 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin connectors. The MX550 has a 25 W TDP and uses no power connectors, operating as an IGP-class solution.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT uses the Navi 22 chip built on RDNA 2.0, fabricated on TSMC’s 7 nm process. It packs 17,200 million transistors into a 335 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 51.3M per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce MX550, by contrast, uses the TU117SB chip based on the older Turing architecture, built on TSMC’s 12 nm process. It contains 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of just 23.5M per mm².

The RX 6700 XT is a full desktop-class part with 2560 shading units, 160 texture mapping units, 64 ROPs, and 40 dedicated ray tracing cores. The MX550 is a mobile-oriented chip with 1024 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, and it lacks ray tracing cores entirely. This means the AMD card supports hardware-accelerated ray tracing while the NVIDIA card does not.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The RX 6700 XT features 12 GB of GDDR6 on a 192-bit bus with 384.0 GB/s bandwidth. The MX550 has 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s. That is a 4x difference in bus width and a 4x difference in bandwidth. The AMD card also runs its memory at 16 Gbps effective, versus 12 Gbps for the MX550.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The RX 6700 XT has a base clock of 2321 MHz, a boost of 2581 MHz, and a game clock of 2424 MHz. The MX550 is much slower, with a base of 1065 MHz and boost of 1320 MHz. The AMD card’s FP32 throughput is 13.21 TFLOPS versus 2.703 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA part. Notably, the RX 6700 XT does FP16 at 26.43 TFLOPS (2:1 rate), while the MX550 does FP16 at the same rate as FP32 (2.703 TFLOPS, 1:1).

The RX 6700 XT uses a PCIe 4.0 x16 interface and offers 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The MX550 uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by laptop implementation. The AMD card is dual-slot with external power connectors, while the MX550 is IGP-class with no power connectors and no standalone dimensions listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two benchmark tests are shared between the two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The RX 6700 XT wins both, giving it a 2-0 record in head-to-head comparisons.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 6700 XT scores 44,152 against the MX550’s 20,372. The delta is 116.7%, meaning the AMD card is more than twice as fast in raw compute workloads. This is a massive margin that reflects the differences in shading units, clock speeds, and memory bandwidth. The MX550’s 1024 shading units at 1320 MHz boost simply cannot compete with 2560 shading units at 2581 MHz boost.

The Vulkan test shows an even larger gap. The RX 6700 XT scores 93,500 while the MX550 scores 32,469, a delta of 188%. This near-3x advantage in Vulkan suggests that the AMD card scales particularly well in modern graphics APIs that leverage its higher geometry throughput and larger memory subsystem. The 188% delta is the single biggest win for the AMD card in any shared metric.

It is importantly the MX550 has no ray tracing cores, so any DirectX 12 Ultimate workload with ray tracing enabled would be a non-starter on the NVIDIA part. The RX 6700 XT’s 40 RT cores give it a functional advantage in that area, though no head-to-head RT benchmark is available in the data.

The average benchmark scores also tell the story. The RX 6700 XT has an average score of 27,425 across all its benchmarks, while the MX550 averages 26,421. That difference is small in percentage terms, but the MX550’s average is pulled up by its limited benchmark set (only OpenCL and Vulkan), while the RX 6700 XT’s average includes many more tests, including PassMark suites where it scores 19,786 in G3D and 9,336 in GPU compute.

Specification Differences

The specification gaps between these two cards are wide and consistent. Here are the fields where they differ:

• Process node: 7 nm (RX 6700 XT) vs 12 nm (MX550)
• Transistors: 17,200 million vs 4,700 million
• Die size: 335 mm² vs 200 mm²
• Transistor density: 51.3M / mm² vs 23.5M / mm²
• Base clock: 2321 MHz vs 1065 MHz
• Boost clock: 2581 MHz vs 1320 MHz
• Game clock: 2424 MHz (RX 6700 XT only; MX550 has none)
• Memory clock: 2000 MHz / 16 Gbps effective vs 1500 MHz / 12 Gbps effective
• Memory size: 12 GB vs 2 GB
• Memory bus width: 192 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 384.0 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s
• Shading units: 2560 vs 1024
• TMUs: 160 vs 32
• ROPs: 64 vs 16
• RT cores: 40 vs none
• Pixel rate: 165.2 GPixel/s vs 21.12 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 413.0 GTexel/s vs 42.24 GTexel/s
• FP32: 13.21 TFLOPS vs 2.703 TFLOPS
• FP16: 26.43 TFLOPS (2:1) vs 2.703 TFLOPS (1:1)
• TDP: 230 W vs 25 W
• Slot width: Dual-slot vs IGP
• Power connectors: 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin vs None
• Suggested PSU: 550 W vs not specified
• Bus interface: PCIe 4.0 x16 vs PCIe 4.0 x8
• Display outputs: 1x HDMI 2.1 + 3x DisplayPort 1.4a vs Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX support: 12 Ultimate (12_2) vs 12 (12_1)
• Dimensions: 267 mm x 110 mm x 40 mm vs not specified
• Release date: 2021-03-02 vs 2021-12-16

The MX550 does not have a launch MSRP listed, while the RX 6700 XT has a launch MSRP of 479 USD.

Where Each One Wins

The RX 6700 XT wins in every shared benchmark and in every specification category that matters for performance. It is faster in raw compute (OpenCL), faster in modern graphics API workloads (Vulkan), has 6x the memory capacity, 4x the memory bandwidth, and nearly 5x the FP32 throughput. It also supports hardware ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate, which the MX550 cannot do.

The MX550’s only real advantages are power efficiency and physical size. At 25 W TDP, it is a fraction of the RX 6700 XT’s 230 W draw. It requires no power connectors and no dedicated cooling beyond what a laptop chassis provides. Its IGP-class slot width means it can fit into thin-and-light designs where a dual-slot 267 mm card would be impossible. The MX550 also has a later release date (2021-12-16 vs 2021-03-02), but that does not translate into any performance benefit.

For use cases, the RX 6700 XT is clearly aimed at desktop gaming and content creation. Its 12 GB VRAM is sufficient for high-resolution textures and modern game assets. Its 40 RT cores enable ray-traced effects. Its 413.0 GTexel/s texture rate and 165.2 GPixel/s pixel rate make it suitable for high-refresh-rate 1440p gaming or even 4K with adjusted settings.

The MX550 is a laptop entry-level discrete GPU. Its 2 GB VRAM limits it to lighter workloads: esports titles at low settings, basic photo editing, or hardware acceleration for video playback. Its 25 W TDP makes it suitable for ultraportable laptops where battery life and thermals are priorities. The lack of RT cores and the 12_1 DirectX support mean it is not future-proof for next-generation game features.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The AMD Radeon RX 6700 XT outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 by margins of 116.7% in OpenCL and 188% in Vulkan. It has more of everything: shading units (2560 vs 1024), memory (12 GB vs 2 GB), bandwidth (384.0 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s), and FP32 throughput (13.21 TFLOPS vs 2.703 TFLOPS). It supports ray tracing and DirectX 12 Ultimate. It is a desktop-class card with a 230 W TDP and dual-slot cooler.

The MX550 is a different class of product entirely. It is a 25 W mobile chip with 2 GB VRAM and no ray tracing support. Its 72nd percentile ranking matches the RX 6700 XT, but that is only because its benchmark set is so limited. In actual head-to-head tests, it loses both available benchmarks by enormous margins.

Who should pick which? Anyone building a desktop gaming PC or a workstation that needs serious graphics compute should choose the RX 6700 XT. It is end-of-life, but its specifications remain competitive. Its 12 GB VRAM and RT cores give it longevity for modern games. The 550 W suggested PSU is easily accommodated in any mid-range desktop build.

The MX550 should only be chosen by someone buying a thin-and-light laptop where power draw and physical footprint are the primary constraints. It is end-of-life as well, and its 2 GB VRAM will struggle with modern game titles. For basic productivity, video playback, and light creative work, it is sufficient. For gaming or compute-heavy tasks, it is not in the same league as the RX 6700 XT.

The verdict is simple: the RX 6700 XT is a capable desktop GPU that competes near the RTX 3090 level (0.5% behind in average score) according to its nearest rivals. The MX550 competes with integrated-class GPUs like the AMD Radeon 860M (0.1% ahead). These are different market segments, and the performance gap reflects that. If you need gaming performance, buy the RX 6700 XT. If you need a low-power laptop GPU for basic tasks, the MX550 works, but do not expect it to handle demanding workloads.