ATI Radeon HD 5550 vs R4 (Stoney Ridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) with Radeon HD 5550, including specs and performance data.
R4 (Stoney Ridge) outperforms ATI HD 5550 by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1087 | 1130 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.35 | 1.71 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Stoney Ridge | Redwood |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 9 February 2010 (15 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 | 192 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 600 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 627 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 39 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 8.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.352 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | 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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 165 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 51.2 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 data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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 HD | 9
+28.6%
| 7−8
−28.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+23.8%
|
21−24
−23.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
This is how R4 (Stoney Ridge) and ATI HD 5550 compete in popular games:
- R4 (Stoney Ridge) is 29% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.01 | 0.84 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 9 February 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 39 Watt |
R4 (Stoney Ridge) has a 20.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 160% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5550 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) is a notebook card while Radeon HD 5550 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
