Radeon HD 6550M vs GeForce GT 735M

Place in the ranking	931	1009
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	3.53	3.62
Architecture	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	GK208	Lexington
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	1 April 2013 (11 years ago)	26 November 2010 (13 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	384	400
Core clock speed	575 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	889 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	915 million	2,154 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	26 Watt
Texture fill rate	18.40	12.00
Floating-point processing power	0.4416 TFLOPS	0.48 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	32	20

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
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	MXM-II

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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Standard memory configuration	DDR3	no data
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	28.8 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	No outputs
eDP 1.2 signal support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
LVDS signal support	Up to 1920x1200	no data
VGA аnalog display support	Up to 2048x1536	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	Up to 3840x2160	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP content protection	+	-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	+	-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	+	-

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-
3D Vision / 3DTV Play	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.0
OpenGL	4.5	4.4
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	+	-

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 735M 1.68
+23.5%

HD 6550M 1.36

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.

GT 735M 1713
+72.5%

HD 6550M 993

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GT 735M 5688
+52.4%

HD 6550M 3731

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:

900p	17 +21.4%	14 −21.4%
Full HD	21 +16.7%	18 −16.7%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +3%	30−35 −3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +3%	30−35 −3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +25%	4−5 −25%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +14.3%	14−16 −14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +9.1%	10−12 −9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +3%	30−35 −3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Hitman 3	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

This is how GT 735M and HD 6550M compete in popular games:

GT 735M is 21% faster in 900p
GT 735M is 17% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 735M is 150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 735M is ahead in 29 tests (60%)
there's a draw in 19 tests (40%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.68	1.36
Recency	1 April 2013	26 November 2010
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	26 Watt

GT 735M has a 23.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

HD 6550M, on the other hand, has 26.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 735M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6550M in performance tests.

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