Intel Arc A350M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Comparison

The GeForce MX550 and Arc A350M are evenly matched in benchmark wins, but they achieve that parity through very different strengths. The MX550 takes the Vulkan test decisively, while the A350M dominates in OpenCL, making the choice entirely dependent on the workload. The data shows a 31.2% lead for the MX550 in Vulkan, versus a 17% lead for the A350M in OpenCL, which translates to a split decision where neither GPU is a universal recommendation.

The Verdict

The Intel Arc A350M is the pick for compute-heavy and OpenCL-centric tasks. Its average benchmark score of 24647 places it at the 70th percentile of all GPUs, and its OpenCL score of 24546 is 17% higher than the MX550’s 20372. For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the A350M is the clear winner, offering more raw compute throughput. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 590, scores 24744, putting the A350M within 0.4% of that desktop-class card—a strong showing for a mobile IGP.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 is the pick for Vulkan-based gaming and graphics workloads. Its Vulkan score of 32469 is 31.2% higher than the A350M’s 24747, a massive advantage that cannot be ignored. This places the MX550 at the 72nd percentile of all GPUs, slightly above the A350M’s 70th percentile. The MX550’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon 860M at 26401, a 0.1% difference, while the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 sits at 26331 (0.3% difference), showing the MX550 punches well above its class in Vulkan.

For mixed use, the tie in wins (1-1) means there is no objective overall victor. The data suggests a workflow-specific decision: choose the A350M for OpenCL compute, and the MX550 for Vulkan rendering. If forced to pick a default, the MX550’s higher percentile rank (72 vs 70) and larger Vulkan margin give it a slight edge for general graphics, but the A350M’s superior OpenCL performance and memory capacity make it the better long-term investment for compute tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The MX550 uses NVIDIA’s Turing architecture on a 12 nm TSMC process, with a TU117SB chip containing 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 23.5 million per mm². In contrast, the A350M uses Intel’s Xe-HPG architecture on a 6 nm TSMC process, with a DG2-128 chip containing 7,200 million transistors on a smaller 157 mm² die. The A350M’s density is 45.9 million per mm², nearly double that of the MX550, indicating a more modern, tightly packed design.

The A350M features 6 dedicated ray tracing cores, a capability the MX550 completely lacks. This architectural advantage gives the A350M hardware support for DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the MX550 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). The A350M also supports FP16 at a 2:1 ratio (6.758 TFLOPS) versus the MX550’s 1:1 ratio (2.703 TFLOPS), meaning the Intel part can process half-precision math twice as fast as its full-precision rate. The MX550 has no equivalent tensor or RT cores.

Shading unit counts differ: the MX550 has 1024 shading units, while the A350M has only 768. However, the A350M compensates with more texture mapping units (48 vs 32) and more raster output units (24 vs 16). This suggests the A350M is better optimized for pixel throughput, while the MX550 relies on raw shader count. The A350M’s boost clock of 2200 MHz is substantially higher than the MX550’s 1320 MHz, further explaining its compute advantage despite fewer cores.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the A350M’s compute dominance. The A350M scores 24546, which is 17% higher than the MX550’s 20372. This is a clear, decisive win for Intel. The A350M’s higher boost clock (2200 MHz vs 1320 MHz), larger memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s), and double the FP16 throughput all contribute to this margin. The MX550’s nearest rival in this metric, the AMD Radeon 860M, scores 26401, which is only 0.1% above the MX550’s average—but in OpenCL specifically, the A350M is the stronger part.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the script entirely. The MX550 scores 32469, which is 31.2% higher than the A350M’s 24747. This is a massive delta, and it highlights NVIDIA’s mature Vulkan driver stack versus Intel’s first-generation Arc implementation. The MX550’s Vulkan score is so strong that its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA RTX A4000 (26683, -1% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT 50th Anniversary (26553, -0.5% delta), both of which are far more powerful desktop parts. The A350M’s Vulkan result is closer to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 590 (24744, -0.4% delta), showing it is competitive in this API but not exceptional.

The net result is a 1-1 tie in head-to-head wins. The MX550’s Vulkan margin (31.2%) is nearly double the A350M’s OpenCL margin (17%), suggesting the NVIDIA part has a more pronounced advantage in its winning API. However, the A350M’s OpenCL win is still substantial and relevant for compute tasks.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every core specification. The MX550 uses a 12 nm process, while the A350M uses 6 nm—a two-generation leap in fabrication. The A350M has more transistors (7,200 million vs 4,700 million) but a smaller die (157 mm² vs 200 mm²), leading to a much higher transistor density (45.9M/mm² vs 23.5M/mm²). Clock speeds favor Intel: the A350M boosts to 2200 MHz versus 1320 MHz for the MX550, with base clocks of 1150 MHz and 1065 MHz respectively.

Memory is another major split. The A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6, double the MX550’s 2 GB, and offers higher bandwidth at 112.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. Both use a 64-bit bus and 14 Gbps effective memory speed for the A350M versus 12 Gbps for the MX550. The A350M also has a higher pixel rate (52.80 GPixel/s vs 21.12 GPixel/s) and texture rate (105.6 GTexel/s vs 42.24 GTexel/s), reflecting its extra TMUs and ROPs.

FP32 performance favors the A350M at 3.379 TFLOPS versus 2.703 TFLOPS for the MX550. FP16 performance is even more lopsided: 6.758 TFLOPS for the A350M versus 2.703 TFLOPS for the MX550. The A350M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the MX550 only supports DirectX 12 (12_1). Both use PCIe 4.0 x8, have a 25 W TDP, and lack power connectors. The MX550 was released on 2021-12-16, while the A350M came later on 2022-03-29. Both are end-of-life products with no launch MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better OpenCL performance?

A: The Intel Arc A350M wins OpenCL decisively. It scores 24546, which is 17% higher than the MX550’s 20372.

Q: Which GPU is better for Vulkan gaming?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 dominates Vulkan. Its score of 32469 is 31.2% higher than the A350M’s 24747.

Q: How do their memory capacities compare?

A: The A350M has 4 GB of GDDR6, double the MX550’s 2 GB. The A350M also has higher bandwidth at 112.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Do either of these GPUs support ray tracing?

A: Only the Intel Arc A350M has 6 dedicated ray tracing cores. The MX550 has no RT cores and is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1), while the A350M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The MX550 has a higher average score of 26421, placing it at the 72nd percentile. The A350M averages 24647, at the 70th percentile.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The A350M has 7,200 million transistors on a 157 mm² die, while the MX550 has 4,700 million on a 200 mm² die. The A350M’s 6 nm process gives it a density of 45.9M/mm² versus 23.5M/mm² for the MX550.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 wins in Vulkan-based applications, which typically includes modern games and graphics-heavy workloads. Its 31.2% Vulkan advantage over the A350M is the single largest margin in this comparison, and its average score of 26421 places it above the A350M’s 24647. For users who prioritize gaming compatibility and driver maturity in Vulkan titles, the MX550 is the safer choice. Its higher percentile rank (72 vs 70) also indicates better overall standing in the GPU landscape.

The Intel Arc A350M wins in OpenCL compute tasks, including scientific simulations, video encoding, and machine learning inference that rely on OpenCL. Its 17% OpenCL lead over the MX550 is backed by superior hardware: 6 RT cores, double the FP16 throughput (6.758 TFLOPS vs 2.703 TFLOPS), and higher memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s vs 96.00 GB/s). The A350M’s 4 GB memory capacity also makes it more suitable for larger datasets than the MX550’s 2 GB. For compute-heavy workflows, the A350M’s raw throughput and modern architecture (6 nm, Xe-HPG) provide a clear advantage.

In terms of architectural features, the A350M wins on future-proofing with DirectX 12 Ultimate support and ray tracing, while the MX550 wins on raw Vulkan execution. The tie in benchmark wins (1-1) means the decision rests entirely on which API the user’s applications favor. If the workload is OpenCL-centric, the A350M is the data-backed choice; if Vulkan is the primary API, the MX550 is unambiguously superior.