GeForce GT 415M vs Radeon HD 7550M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7550M and GeForce GT 415M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 7550M outperforms GT 415M by an impressive 64% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1055 | 1163 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.95 | 4.25 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Thames | GF108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2012 (13 years ago) | 3 September 2010 (14 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 | 480 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 550 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 4.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 0.096 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 24 | 8 |
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 | medium sized | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 25.6 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 |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| World of Tanks | 27−30
+42.1%
|
18−20
−42.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 7550M is 150% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 7550M is ahead in 19 tests (54%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (46%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.21 | 0.74 |
| Recency | 7 January 2012 | 3 September 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 512 MB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 12 Watt |
HD 7550M has a 63.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GT 415M, on the other hand, has 16.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7550M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 415M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
