OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon Pro 555 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£130VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):75 W

AMD Radeon Pro 555 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

5.9/10

Overall score

Score
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components

40%

3.5

Technical score

25%

?

Reviews scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.6, the mark of a weaker model in this category

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.8, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 90% of graphics cards
7.1

Value for money

Value for money
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

â–¼Worse than 71%
3.5

Technical score

Technical score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components

44%

1.5

Performance

24%

1.7

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

7.0

Features

5%

8.1

Design

4%

7.0

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 98%
?

Reviews score

Reviews score
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
Grades by review (0)
We have not found an independent test of this model yet. Until we do, its review part counts as 7.6.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
No expert tests yet
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £130
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon Pro 555

Technical score
Technical score
3.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models
Score components:

44%

1.5

Performance

24%

1.7

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

7.0

Features

5%

8.1

Design

4%

7.0

Connectivity

3.5
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 71% of models
Score components:

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

9.8

Price

7.1
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,100 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 1,100 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 98.4% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
3,141 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 3,141 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 96.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
3,141 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 3,141 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 89.5% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
1.31 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.31 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 95.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.4% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 68.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26.7% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
81.6 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 81.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 96.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
5,100 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 5,100 MHz, which is slower than that of 95.8% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.2% of graphics cards and equal to 15.6% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
5120x2880
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 5120x2880, which is lower than that of 90.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
0
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 0 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 96.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.8% of graphics cards and equal to 13.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
75 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 75 W, which is lower than that of 90.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
75 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 75 W under peak load, which is lower than 91.8% of graphics cards and equal to 2.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
300 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 300 W PSU, which is lower than that of 94% of graphics cards and equal to that of 5% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
75 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 75 W, which is lower than that of 91.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.2% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
75 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
1 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 1 slot/s, which is slimmer than 96.1% of graphics cards and equal in width to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Weight
?
Show more

AMD Radeon Pro 555 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 2.9x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (5,080 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    5,080 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 4x cheaper
    AMD Radeon Pro 555 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£130 vs £520).
    £130 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 4x cheaper
    AMD Radeon Pro 555 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£130 vs £520).
    £130 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 2.9x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (5,080 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    5,080 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 58.2% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (123 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    123 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 65.1% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (75 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    75 W vs 215 W
  • 53.8% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (300 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    300 W vs 650 W
  • 65.9% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 65.9% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (75 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    75 W vs 220 W
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 66.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (850 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    850 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 28 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    12 vs 40
  • 55.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (850 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    850 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 136 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (48 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    48 vs 184
  • 4.3% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon Pro 555 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (7.11 vs 7.4).
    7.11 vs 7.41
  • 66.1% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (850 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    850 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 28 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (12 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    12 vs 40
  • 55.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (850 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    850 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 136 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (48 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    48 vs 184
  • 89.2% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (40.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    40.8 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 91.6% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (13.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    13.6 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 48 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (16 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    16 vs 64
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 94.2% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (1.3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    1.31 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 86.1% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (3,141 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    3,141 points vs 22,638 points
  • 6 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2017 vs 2023).
    June 2017
    2017 vs 2023
  • 92.6% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1,100 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,100 points vs 14,779 points
  • 95.6% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (1.3 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    1.31 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 83.3% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0.1 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.08 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 74% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (3,141 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    3,141 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 3,584 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (768 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    768 vs 4,352
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 81.8% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (81.6 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    81.6 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 73.2% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (5,100 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    5,100 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 64 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    128 bit vs 192 bit
  • 95.8% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (1 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    1 MB vs 24 MB
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.3 vs 1.4).
    1.3 vs 1.4
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5.1 vs 6.8).
    5.1 vs 6.8
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2 vs 3
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 86.9% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (3,000 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    3,000 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • 3 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (0 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    0 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1a).
    2.0b vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 1.4a).
    1.4 vs 1.4a
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 2.3).
    2.2 vs 2.3
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (5120x2880 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    5120x2880 vs 7680x4320
  • 75% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • No overclocking support
    This graphics card does not support overclocking, the average graphics card does.
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 22 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (89 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    89 °C vs 67 °C
  • 5 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (100 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    100 °C vs 95 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Not graded
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon Pro 555

  • Efficient performance for daily productivity and basic tasks
  • Supports multi-display technology for immersive multi-monitor setups
  • Capable of running light titles like 'League of Legends' or 'Rocket League' smoothly
  • Provides significantly better performance (over 900%) compared to integrated HD Graphics
  • Features professional-grade drivers optimized for stability in creative software suites

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon Pro 555

  • Limited 2GB GDDR5 VRAM, which causes significant lag when using high-resolution external displays
  • Poor performance in modern AAA games, often requiring minimum settings and low resolutions
  • Lacks support for modern AI-driven upscaling features like NVIDIA's DLSS
  • Does not support advanced rendering techniques like hardware-accelerated ray tracing
  • Inferior performance compared to slightly newer or higher-tier mobile GPUs like the GTX 1050 or Radeon Pro 560

Verdict

The AMD Radeon Pro 555 is a professional mobile graphics card launched in June 2017, built on a 14 nm process and based on the Polaris 21 architecture. It features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, 16 ROPs, and 2 GB of GDDR5 memory connected via a 128-bit interface, delivering a memory bandwidth of 81.6 GB/s and a peak floating-point performance of 1.3 TFLOPS. Its main characteristics include support for DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan, with a power consumption rated at approximately 35W to 75W depending on implementation. Main pros include its suitability for professional CAD and CGI workloads in slim laptops like the mid-2017 MacBook Pro 15 and its support for multi-display setups and ECC memory. However, cons include its limited 2 GB VRAM, which is often insufficient for modern gaming or high-resolution textures, and performance that is now considered entry-level compared to contemporary dedicated GPUs.

Compare AMD Radeon Pro 555 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon Pro 555 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found