Radeon RX 6550M vs 680M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon 680M and Radeon RX 6550M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Radeon 680M
2023
50 Watt
15.33

RX 6550M outperforms 680M by an impressive 63% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking347216
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency21.0221.36
ArchitectureRDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameRembrandt+Navi 24
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 January 2023 (1 year 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 cores7681024
Core clock speed2000 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speed2200 MHz2840 MHz
Number of transistors13,100 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt80 Watt
Texture fill rate105.6181.8
Floating-point processing power3.379 TFLOPS5.816 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs4864
Ray Tracing Cores1216

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data144.0 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentPortable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.76.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.2
Vulkan1.31.3

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. 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.

Radeon 680M 15.33
RX 6550M 24.93
+62.6%

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.

Radeon 680M 5909
RX 6550M 9605
+62.5%

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.

Radeon 680M 10371
RX 6550M 20506
+97.7%

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.

Radeon 680M 6865
RX 6550M 14696
+114%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Radeon 680M 2303
RX 6550M 4546
+97.4%

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 HD37
−100%
74
+100%
1440p17
−35.3%
23
+35.3%
4K11
−45.5%
16−18
+45.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 39
−2.6%
40−45
+2.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−38.5%
50−55
+38.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 38
−10.5%
40−45
+10.5%
Battlefield 5 55−60
−40.4%
80−85
+40.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
−42.9%
50−55
+42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 29
−37.9%
40−45
+37.9%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−36.6%
55−60
+36.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
−36.2%
60−65
+36.2%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
−30.9%
140−150
+30.9%
Hitman 3 32
−53.1%
45−50
+53.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
−31.4%
110−120
+31.4%
Metro Exodus 60−65
−40%
80−85
+40%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
−36.2%
60−65
+36.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
−45.6%
80−85
+45.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
−20%
100−110
+20%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−38.5%
50−55
+38.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 31
−35.5%
40−45
+35.5%
Battlefield 5 55−60
−40.4%
80−85
+40.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
−42.9%
50−55
+42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 21
−90.5%
40−45
+90.5%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−36.6%
55−60
+36.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
−36.2%
60−65
+36.2%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
−30.9%
140−150
+30.9%
Hitman 3 30
−63.3%
45−50
+63.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
−31.4%
110−120
+31.4%
Metro Exodus 60−65
−40%
80−85
+40%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
−36.2%
60−65
+36.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 47
−115%
101
+115%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
−32.5%
50−55
+32.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
−20%
100−110
+20%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
−38.5%
50−55
+38.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27
−55.6%
40−45
+55.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
−42.9%
50−55
+42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
−135%
40−45
+135%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−36.6%
55−60
+36.6%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
−30.9%
140−150
+30.9%
Hitman 3 27
−81.5%
45−50
+81.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 43
−163%
110−120
+163%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40
−120%
88
+120%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
−104%
49
+104%
Watch Dogs: Legion 18
−467%
100−110
+467%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
−36.2%
60−65
+36.2%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
−42.4%
45−50
+42.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
−37%
35−40
+37%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
−38.9%
24−27
+38.9%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
−60%
24−27
+60%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
−47.4%
27−30
+47.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
−36.4%
14−16
+36.4%
Far Cry 5 20−22
−40%
27−30
+40%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
−48.9%
140−150
+48.9%
Hitman 3 20−22
−45%
27−30
+45%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
−42.9%
50−55
+42.9%
Metro Exodus 30−35
−43.8%
45−50
+43.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27
−96.3%
50−55
+96.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
−76.5%
30−33
+76.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
−32.4%
130−140
+32.4%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
−41.4%
40−45
+41.4%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−41.2%
24−27
+41.2%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−46.2%
18−20
+46.2%
Hitman 3 12−14
−46.2%
18−20
+46.2%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
−41.6%
120−130
+41.6%
Metro Exodus 18−20
−55.6%
27−30
+55.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
−100%
24−27
+100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
−50%
14−16
+50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
−62.5%
12−14
+62.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
−50%
6−7
+50%
Far Cry 5 9−10
−55.6%
14−16
+55.6%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
−41.7%
30−35
+41.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14
−114%
30−33
+114%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
−57.1%
10−12
+57.1%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−40%
21−24
+40%

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

  • RX 6550M is 100% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6550M is 35% faster in 1440p
  • RX 6550M is 45% faster in 4K

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6550M is 467% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, RX 6550M surpassed Radeon 680M in all 72 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.33 24.93
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 80 Watt

Radeon 680M has 60% lower power consumption.

RX 6550M, on the other hand, has a 62.6% higher aggregate performance score.

The Radeon RX 6550M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 680M 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.


AMD Radeon 680M
Radeon 680M
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.


4.2 952 votes

Rate Radeon 680M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 196 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.