GeForce MX550 vs GT 730

Place in the ranking	860	406
Place by popularity	37	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.19	no data
Power efficiency	3.07	32.80
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GF108	TU117S
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	18 June 2014 (10 years ago)	17 December 2021 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$59.99	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	96	1024
Core clock speed	700 MHz	1065 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1320 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	49 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	11.2 GT/s	42.24
Floating-point processing power	0.2688 TFLOPS	2.703 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	16
TMUs	16	32

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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x8
Length	145 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	DDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	96 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA	Portable Device Dependent
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7 (6.4)
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	2.1	7.5

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 730 2.16

GeForce MX550 11.78
+445%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GT 730 835

GeForce MX550 4544
+444%

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.

GT 730 1170

GeForce MX550 6126
+424%

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	8−9 −475%	46 +475%
4K	5−6 −460%	28 +460%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	7.50	no data
4K	12.00	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

18−20

+0%

18−20

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Hitman 3	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Hitman 3	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	52 +0%	52 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Hitman 3	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	42 +0%	42 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27 +0%	27 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35

+0%

30−35

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Hitman 3	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20

+0%

18−20

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Hitman 3	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

+0%

10−12

+0%

This is how GT 730 and GeForce MX550 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX550 is 475% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX550 is 460% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.16	11.78
Recency	18 June 2014	17 December 2021
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	49 Watt	25 Watt

GeForce MX550 has a 445.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 96% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX550 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 730 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 730 is a desktop card while GeForce MX550 is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.