Radeon RX 6550M vs Arc A350M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Arc A350M and Radeon RX 6550M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 6550M outperforms Arc A350M by an impressive 74% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 369 | 223 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 39.93 | 21.72 |
| Architecture | Generation 12.7 (2022−2023) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | DG2-128 | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 March 2022 (2 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (2 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1150 MHz | 2840 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 55.20 | 181.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.766 TFLOPS | 5.816 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 32 |
| TMUs | 48 | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 6 | 16 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 144.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 1.3 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Time Spy Graphics
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 36
−86.1%
| 67
+86.1%
|
| 1440p | 16
−62.5%
| 26
+62.5%
|
| 4K | 9
−55.6%
| 14−16
+55.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
−91.2%
|
65−70
+91.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−121%
|
53
+121%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27
−88.9%
|
50−55
+88.9%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
−91.2%
|
65−70
+91.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−59.3%
|
90−95
+59.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−87.5%
|
45
+87.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
−168%
|
50−55
+168%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
−117%
|
91
+117%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−51.3%
|
110−120
+51.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−66.7%
|
95−100
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 32
−109%
|
65−70
+109%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
−84%
|
90−95
+84%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−42.6%
|
160−170
+42.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−35
−91.2%
|
65−70
+91.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−59.3%
|
90−95
+59.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−45.8%
|
35
+45.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 180−190
−36.4%
|
250−260
+36.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16
−219%
|
50−55
+219%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
−95.2%
|
120−130
+95.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
−115%
|
84
+115%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
−51.3%
|
110−120
+51.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−66.7%
|
95−100
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−81.1%
|
65−70
+81.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
−235%
|
85−90
+235%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
−85.7%
|
50−55
+85.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
−84%
|
90−95
+84%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 43
−93%
|
83
+93%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−42.6%
|
160−170
+42.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−59.3%
|
90−95
+59.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−20.8%
|
29
+20.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12
−325%
|
50−55
+325%
|
| Dota 2 | 59
−105%
|
120−130
+105%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37
−114%
|
79
+114%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
−66.7%
|
95−100
+66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21
−219%
|
65−70
+219%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
−84%
|
90−95
+84%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
−158%
|
49
+158%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−42.6%
|
160−170
+42.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 75−80
−51.3%
|
110−120
+51.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−63.7%
|
160−170
+63.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10
−330%
|
40−45
+330%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−88.2%
|
30−35
+88.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
−42.3%
|
170−180
+42.3%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−42%
|
200−210
+42%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−73.7%
|
65−70
+73.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−37.5%
|
21−24
+37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−91.7%
|
21−24
+91.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 25
−116%
|
50−55
+116%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−84.8%
|
60−65
+84.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−75%
|
40−45
+75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−90.5%
|
40−45
+90.5%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−33
−90%
|
55−60
+90%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 10−12
−72.7%
|
18−20
+72.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 11
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
−100%
|
20−22
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
−133%
|
35−40
+133%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−86.5%
|
130−140
+86.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−89.5%
|
35−40
+89.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
−59.2%
|
75−80
+59.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
−125%
|
27−30
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
−75%
|
40−45
+75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−100%
|
21−24
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−92.3%
|
24−27
+92.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
This is how Arc A350M and RX 6550M compete in popular games:
- RX 6550M is 86% faster in 1080p
- RX 6550M is 63% faster in 1440p
- RX 6550M is 56% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6550M is 330% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 6550M surpassed Arc A350M in all 67 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.56 | 25.34 |
| Recency | 30 March 2022 | 4 January 2023 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 80 Watt |
Arc A350M has 220% lower power consumption.
RX 6550M, on the other hand, has a 74% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 9 months.
The Radeon RX 6550M is our recommended choice as it beats the Arc A350M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
