Radeon RX 6550M vs GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q and Radeon RX 6550M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 1650 Max-Q
2019
4 GB GDDR5, 30 Watt
16.01

RX 6550M outperforms GTX 1650 Max-Q by an impressive 57% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking334211
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency37.2221.95
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameTU117Navi 24
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date23 April 2019 (5 years ago)4 January 2023 (1 year 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 cores10241024
Core clock speed930 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speed1125 MHz2840 MHz
Number of transistors4,700 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt80 Watt
Texture fill rate72.00181.8
Floating-point processing power2.304 TFLOPS5.816 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs6464
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x4
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1751 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth112.1 GB/s144.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.2
Vulkan1.2.1401.3
CUDA7.5-

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 16.01
RX 6550M 25.18
+57.3%

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 6176
RX 6550M 9715
+57.3%

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 11083
RX 6550M 20506
+85%

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.

GTX 1650 Max-Q 7779
RX 6550M 14696
+88.9%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GTX 1650 Max-Q 3016
RX 6550M 4546
+50.7%

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 HD56
−33.9%
75
+33.9%
1440p30
+30.4%
23
−30.4%
4K17
−41.2%
24−27
+41.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−60%
40−45
+60%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 49
−10.2%
50−55
+10.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−61.5%
40−45
+61.5%
Battlefield 5 63
−27%
80−85
+27%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 42
−19%
50−55
+19%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−60%
40−45
+60%
Far Cry 5 48
−16.7%
55−60
+16.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 59
−8.5%
60−65
+8.5%
Forza Horizon 4 195
+35.4%
140−150
−35.4%
Hitman 3 30−35
−58.1%
45−50
+58.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−41.3%
110−120
+41.3%
Metro Exodus 71
−18.3%
80−85
+18.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 54
−18.5%
60−65
+18.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−59.6%
80−85
+59.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−25.9%
100−110
+25.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 69
+27.8%
50−55
−27.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−61.5%
40−45
+61.5%
Battlefield 5 55
−45.5%
80−85
+45.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40
−25%
50−55
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−60%
40−45
+60%
Far Cry 5 38
−47.4%
55−60
+47.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 41
−56.1%
60−65
+56.1%
Forza Horizon 4 179
+24.3%
140−150
−24.3%
Hitman 3 30−35
−58.1%
45−50
+58.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−41.3%
110−120
+41.3%
Metro Exodus 58
−44.8%
80−85
+44.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45
−42.2%
60−65
+42.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−94.2%
101
+94.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
−39.5%
50−55
+39.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−25.9%
100−110
+25.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 20
−170%
50−55
+170%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
−61.5%
40−45
+61.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 25
−100%
50−55
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27
−60%
40−45
+60%
Far Cry 5 26
−115%
55−60
+115%
Forza Horizon 4 55
−162%
140−150
+162%
Hitman 3 30−35
−58.1%
45−50
+58.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−41.3%
110−120
+41.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
−69.2%
88
+69.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30
−63.3%
49
+63.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 80−85
−25.9%
100−110
+25.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 42
−52.4%
60−65
+52.4%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 33
−42.4%
45−50
+42.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 26
−42.3%
35−40
+42.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 17
−47.1%
24−27
+47.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−84.6%
24−27
+84.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
−64.7%
27−30
+64.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
−66.7%
14−16
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 19
−47.4%
27−30
+47.4%
Forza Horizon 4 124
−12.9%
140−150
+12.9%
Hitman 3 18−20
−52.6%
27−30
+52.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−51.5%
50−55
+51.5%
Metro Exodus 32
−43.8%
45−50
+43.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−33
−76.7%
50−55
+76.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
−76.5%
30−33
+76.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 95−100
−41.8%
130−140
+41.8%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
−57.7%
40−45
+57.7%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 11
−118%
24−27
+118%
Far Cry New Dawn 13
−46.2%
18−20
+46.2%
Hitman 3 12−14
−58.3%
18−20
+58.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 80−85
−55.6%
120−130
+55.6%
Metro Exodus 22
−27.3%
27−30
+27.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
−44.4%
24−27
+44.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8
−87.5%
14−16
+87.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
−62.5%
12−14
+62.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−75%
14−16
+75%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−100%
6−7
+100%
Far Cry 5 9
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−54.5%
30−35
+54.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16−18
−87.5%
30−33
+87.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
−83.3%
10−12
+83.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 13
−61.5%
21−24
+61.5%

This is how GTX 1650 Max-Q and RX 6550M compete in popular games:

  • RX 6550M is 34% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is 30% faster in 1440p
  • RX 6550M is 41% faster in 4K

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

  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 1650 Max-Q is 35% faster.
  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6550M is 170% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 Max-Q is ahead in 3 tests (4%)
  • RX 6550M is ahead in 69 tests (96%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 16.01 25.18
Recency 23 April 2019 4 January 2023
Chip lithography 12 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 80 Watt

GTX 1650 Max-Q has 166.7% lower power consumption.

RX 6550M, on the other hand, has a 57.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6550M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q
AMD Radeon RX 6550M
Radeon RX 6550M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 617 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 152 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6550M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.