Radeon RX 6550M vs GeForce GTX 680M

Place in the ranking	502	218
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.81	no data
Power efficiency	5.82	21.57
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GK104	Navi 24
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	4 June 2012 (12 years ago)	4 January 2023 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$310.50	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	1344	1024
Core clock speed	719 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	758 MHz	2840 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	80 Watt
Texture fill rate	84.90	181.8
Floating-point processing power	2.038 TFLOPS	5.816 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	112	64
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	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	large	medium sized
Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 4.0 x4
Supplementary power connectors	None	None
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1800 MHz	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	115.2 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

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 API	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
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.

GTX 680M 8.46

RX 6550M 25.07
+196%

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 680M 3251

RX 6550M 9638
+196%

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 680M 5898

RX 6550M 20506
+248%

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 680M 4049

RX 6550M 14696
+263%

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	67 −184%	190−200 +184%
Full HD	64 −10.9%	71 +10.9%
1440p	7−8 −214%	22 +214%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.85	no data
1440p	44.36	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −231%	53 +231%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −200%	50−55 +200%
Elden Ring	24−27 −242%	80−85 +242%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −185%	75−80 +185%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −181%	45 +181%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −200%	50−55 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −262%	123 +262%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −200%	65−70 +200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −139%	55−60 +139%
Valorant	30−33 −237%	100−110 +237%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −185%	75−80 +185%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −119%	35 +119%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −200%	50−55 +200%
Dota 2	30−33 −187%	85−90 +187%
Elden Ring	24−27 −242%	80−85 +242%
Far Cry 5	35−40 +9.1%	33 −9.1%
Fortnite	50−55 −152%	120−130 +152%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −197%	101 +197%
Grand Theft Auto V	30−33 −187%	85−90 +187%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −200%	65−70 +200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −134%	150−160 +134%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 −139%	55−60 +139%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 −212%	80−85 +212%
Valorant	30−33 −237%	100−110 +237%
World of Tanks	128 −102%	250−260 +102%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −185%	75−80 +185%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 −81.3%	29 +81.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 −200%	50−55 +200%
Dota 2	30−33 −187%	85−90 +187%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −114%	75−80 +114%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 −159%	88 +159%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −134%	150−160 +134%
Valorant	30−33 −237%	100−110 +237%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	10−11 −320%	40−45 +320%
Elden Ring	10−12 −300%	40−45 +300%
Grand Theft Auto V	10−11 −320%	40−45 +320%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	40−45 −317%	170−180 +317%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −229%	21−24 +229%
World of Tanks	60−65 −172%	160−170 +172%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 −213%	50−55 +213%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −110%	21−24 +110%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −250%	21−24 +250%
Far Cry 5	18−20 −306%	70−75 +306%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −294%	65−70 +294%
Metro Exodus	14−16 −307%	55−60 +307%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −270%	35−40 +270%
Valorant	21−24 −224%	65−70 +224%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −1050%	21−24 +1050%
Dota 2	18−20 −132%	40−45 +132%
Elden Ring	5−6 −300%	20−22 +300%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −132%	40−45 +132%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −375%	18−20 +375%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 −221%	75−80 +221%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −220%	16−18 +220%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −126%	40−45 +126%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −271%	24−27 +271%
Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −1050%	21−24 +1050%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Dota 2	18−20 −132%	40−45 +132%
Far Cry 5	10−11 −230%	30−35 +230%
Fortnite	9−10 −244%	30−35 +244%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −280%	35−40 +280%
Valorant	8−9 −313%	30−35 +313%

This is how GTX 680M and RX 6550M compete in popular games:

RX 6550M is 184% faster in 900p
RX 6550M is 11% faster in 1080p
RX 6550M is 214% faster in 1440p

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

in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 680M is 9% faster.
in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6550M is 1050% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 680M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
RX 6550M is ahead in 62 tests (98%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	8.46	25.07
Recency	4 June 2012	4 January 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	80 Watt

RX 6550M has a 196.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 6550M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 680M in performance tests.

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