ATI Radeon X550 XT

The ATI Radeon X550 XT is a PCIe 1.0 x16 graphics card from AMD, built on the RV410 chip with the R400 architecture. Released in January 2007, it features 128 MB of GDDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, 4 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The card is end-of-life, and its specifications point to a low-power entry-level design.

Benchmark Performance

The fact pack lists no benchmark scores for this card; the average benchmark score is 0. However, the percentile rank of 50 places it at the median of all GPUs in the database, suggesting a mid-pack position relative to the entire catalog. The pixel rate of 1.600 GPixel/s and texture rate of 1.600 GTexel/s are directly tied to the 4 ROPs and 4 TMUs. These figures indicate that the card can process a limited number of pixels and texels per second, which is typical for a low-end part of its generation. The memory bandwidth of 9.600 GB/s, derived from a 300 MHz memory clock (600 Mbps effective) and a 128-bit bus, is sufficient for the 128 MB frame buffer but may become a bottleneck in texture-heavy scenes. The DirectX 9.0b (9_2) support restricts shader model capabilities, meaning the card cannot execute the more advanced pixel and vertex shaders introduced in later DirectX revisions. OpenGL 2.0 support is present, but Vulkan is absent. Given these specifications, the card's performance is likely to be limited to older titles or low-detail settings, though no direct comparative benchmarks are available to quantify this.

The 110 nm process from TSMC, with 120 million transistors on a 156 mm² die, yields a transistor density of 769.2K per mm². This density reflects a mature manufacturing node and a relatively simple architecture. The R400 architecture, while not featuring any dedicated shading units (the shadingUnits field is null), relies on the 4 TMUs and 4 ROPs for fixed-function processing. The pixel rate of 1.600 GPixel/s and texture rate of 1.600 GTexel/s are identical, indicating a balanced fill-rate design that does not favor one operation over the other. The memory subsystem, with a 128-bit bus and 9.600 GB/s bandwidth, is modest even by 2007 standards, but it aligns with the card's low-end positioning. Without concrete benchmark data, the 50th percentile rank serves as the only comparative metric, and it suggests that the card sits exactly in the middle of the database's performance distribution—a neutral outcome that does not indicate any particular strength or weakness.

Who Should Consider It

The 128 MB memory capacity and 9.600 GB/s bandwidth indicate that this card is best suited for applications that do not require large texture sets or high resolutions. The 4 ROPs and 4 TMUs further constrain its ability to render at high pixel counts. Users who play games released around the card's launch date, which support DirectX 9.0b, may find it adequate for basic 3D acceleration. However, the lack of Vulkan support and the limited shader model mean that more recent titles will not run. The card's 1.600 GPixel/s pixel rate suggests it can handle simple 2D interfaces and legacy 3D scenes without strain. For users with a 200 W power supply and a PCIe 1.0 x16 slot, this card offers a low-power, single-slot solution for basic display output. It is not intended for high-detail gaming or compute workloads, as the absence of dedicated tensor or ray tracing cores precludes such tasks.

The display outputs—1x DVI, 1x VGA, and 1x S-Video—provide connectivity for older monitors and televisions, making the card a practical choice for retro computing or secondary display setups. The 128 MB memory, while small, is adequate for 2D desktop environments and older 3D applications that were designed with similar memory footprints. The card's PCIe 1.0 x16 interface ensures compatibility with a wide range of motherboards from the mid-2000s. Given the lack of modern API support, users should not expect to run any DirectX 10 or later titles, nor any Vulkan-based applications. The card is best viewed as a legacy component, suited for users who need a simple, low-power graphics output without the complexity of modern drivers or power delivery.

Power and Cooling

The fact pack does not list a TDP for this card, but the suggested PSU is 200 W. This indicates a low power draw, especially given that the card requires no auxiliary power connectors. The single-slot design further suggests a modest thermal footprint. The PCIe 1.0 x16 slot itself supplies the necessary power, which is typical for low-end cards of that era. The absence of a dedicated power connector means that users do not need to worry about additional cable management. The 110 nm process from TSMC, with 120 million transistors on a 156 mm² die, yields a transistor density of 769.2K per mm², which is consistent with a low-power part. The card's memory runs at 300 MHz (600 Mbps effective), contributing to a low overall power envelope. The 200 W PSU recommendation is conservative and suggests that even a modest system power supply can support this card.

The card's single-slot form factor and lack of power connectors make it easy to install in compact cases. The absence of a TDP figure in the fact pack means that precise power consumption cannot be stated, but the combination of a 200 W PSU suggestion and no auxiliary power requirement implies a draw well below that threshold. The PCIe 1.0 x16 slot provides up to 75 W of power, but given the card's simple architecture, the actual draw is likely much lower. The 110 nm process is not particularly power-efficient by modern standards, but the low transistor count and modest clock speeds keep thermal output manageable. Users should ensure that their power supply meets the 200 W recommendation, though most systems from the era would easily exceed this.

How It Compares

The fact pack does not provide any nearest rivals for this card, so a direct comparative analysis against specific competing products is not possible from the available data. However, the card's position in the product stack can be inferred from its predecessor and successor. The predecessor is listed as Radeon R200, an older generation, while the successor is Radeon R400 AGP, which suggests a move to the AGP interface. This card uses PCIe 1.0 x16, indicating a transitional period. The 50th percentile rank among all GPUs in the database places it at the median, but without benchmark scores, this is only a relative indicator. Compared to its successor, the Radeon R400 AGP, the X550 XT lacks the AGP interface and may have different memory configurations, but no specifications are given for those products. The card's 128 MB memory and 128-bit bus are typical for entry-level offerings of its time. Given the lack of rival data, we cannot quantify performance deltas, but the architectural specifications suggest it is a baseline part.

The absence of nearestRivals in the fact pack means that no percentage deltas can be calculated. The card's percentile rank of 50 places it exactly at the median, which is a neutral position—neither above nor below average. This is a notable contrast to many other GPUs in the database, which often have clear performance tiers. The predecessor Radeon R200 is likely a less capable part, given its older generation status, but no numbers are provided to confirm this. The successor Radeon R400 AGP, with its AGP interface, targets a different motherboard ecosystem, so a direct comparison is not meaningful without further data. The card's PCIe 1.0 x16 interface is a key differentiator from its AGP successor, and it may appeal to users with PCIe-based systems from the mid-2000s. Overall, the card's position is defined more by its interface and memory configuration than by any measurable performance advantage.

Ray Tracing and Feature Set

The ATI Radeon X550 XT does not include any dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores; the fact pack lists neither rtCores nor tensorCores. This is consistent with its DirectX 9.0b (9_2) support, which predates hardware-accelerated ray tracing. The card supports OpenGL 2.0, but Vulkan is not listed. The display outputs include 1x DVI, 1x VGA, and 1x S-Video, enabling connection to a variety of monitors and televisions. The absence of modern API support means that the card cannot run applications that require DirectX 11 or later, nor any Vulkan-based titles. For users who rely on legacy software that uses DirectX 9.0b or OpenGL 2.0, the feature set is adequate. The 4 TMUs and 4 ROPs are the only processing units for pixel and texture operations, and there are no shading units listed (shadingUnits is null). This suggests that the card relies on fixed-function hardware for many operations, which is typical for the R400 architecture. The 1.600 GPixel/s pixel rate and 1.600 GTexel/s texture rate are the maximum output rates for these units. Overall, the feature set is minimal, focusing on basic 3D acceleration without any advanced compute or rendering capabilities.

The lack of tensor cores means that any machine learning or AI-accelerated features are absent. The absence of ray tracing cores precludes real-time ray-traced lighting, which is not a concern for a card from 2007 but is worth noting for modern comparisons. The DirectX 9.0b (9_2) support limits the card to Shader Model 2.0, which is a significant constraint for contemporary games. OpenGL 2.0 provides some flexibility, but many modern OpenGL features are not available. The card's memory type, GDDR3, is a step above the older DDR2 used in some contemporaries, but the 128 MB capacity and 128-bit bus keep it firmly in entry-level territory. The 300 MHz memory clock (600 Mbps effective) yields a bandwidth of 9.600 GB/s, which is modest. The card's single-slot design and lack of power connectors further emphasize its low-power, basic feature set. For users who need only a display output and minimal 3D acceleration, the X550 XT meets those needs, but it offers no headroom for future software demands.