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

Mancer Radeon RX 550 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£80VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):50 W

Mancer Radeon RX 550 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

6.1/10

Overall score

Score
6.1/ 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 88% 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%

8.8

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 88% of graphics cards
7.2

Value for money

Value for money
7.2/ 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 68% of models
Score components

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 68%
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%

2.0

Memory

12%

8.0

Power

11%

7.1

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

5.8

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
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the Mancer Radeon RX 550

Based on 232 owners sharing their experience in online comments

72%positive19%mixed9%negative

Owners value its surprisingly capable gaming and tuning headroom, while newer, demanding games expose its limits.

What owners dislike

  • Struggles with newer and shader-heavy games, often needing low settings or a lower resolution to stay playable.27
  • Frame rates often sit around 20–40 fps in demanding titles and can dip sharply in busy scenes or with a weaker CPU.14
  • Needs low settings and 720p or 900p for newer games, since 1080p looks playable only in older titles.7
  • Falls well behind newer and rival cards such as the GTX 1050 Ti, RX 580 and modern GPUs, which far outperform it.5
  • Runs hot in gaming, often reaching about 85–92°C, especially in small form factor cases.4
  • The 2 GB version runs out of memory in newer games like RDR2, forcing lower texture settings and slowing performance.3

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Graphics cards model ranking

Ranked #1193 of 2,260 models in Graphics cards (Overall score)

Technical Specifications of graphics card Mancer Radeon RX 550

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%

2.0

Memory

12%

8.0

Power

11%

7.1

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

5.8

Connectivity

3.5
Reviews score
7.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
7.2/ 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 68% of models
Score components:

70%

6.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.2
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,191 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 1,191 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 98% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% 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
2,674 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 2,674 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 96.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
2,674 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2,674 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 92.5% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
1.21 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.21 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 96.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% 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
112 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 112 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 94.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.3% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
7,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 7,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 90.8% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.1% 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
3
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 3 displays, which is fewer than 91% of graphics cards and equal to 6.6% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
3840x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 3840x2160, which is lower than that of 97% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
8.1 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 8.1 Gbps, which is slower than on 65.3% of graphics cards and equal to 22.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
50 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 50 W, which is lower than that of 96.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
50 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 50 W under peak load, which is lower than 97.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% 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
50 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 50 W, which is lower than that of 97% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
50 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
181 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 181 mm long, which is shorter than 92.9% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Height
112 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 112 mm tall, which is shorter than 76.6% of graphics cards and equal in height to 3.2% of graphics cards.
Slot width
2 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 2 slot/s, which is slimmer than 52.4% of graphics cards and equal in width to 43.4% of graphics cards.
Weight
380 g
Market range: <541 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 380 g, which is lighter than 95% of Graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of Graphics cards.
Show more

Mancer Radeon RX 550 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 76.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (50 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    50 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
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 101.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (181 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    181 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 77.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 13 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (112 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    112 mm vs 125 mm
  • 6.5x cheaper
    Mancer Radeon RX 550 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£80 vs £520).
    £80 vs £520
  • 6.5x cheaper
    Mancer Radeon RX 550 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£80 vs £520).
    £80 vs £520
  • 12.8% higher sentiment score
    8.8 vs 7.8
  • 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
  • Supports ECC memory
    This graphics card supports ECC memory, the average graphics card does not.
  • 1 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    1 vs 0
  • 65% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (103 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    103 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 76.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (50 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    50 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
  • 77.3% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 77.3% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (50 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    50 W vs 220 W
  • 101.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (181 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    181 mm vs 282.2 mm
  • 13 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (112 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    112 mm vs 125 mm
  • 0.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    2 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 62.5% lighter
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (380 g vs 1,014 g). The average graphics card weighs 1,014 g.
    380 g vs 1,014 g
  • 52.8% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,183 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,183 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 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
  • 32 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (8 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    8 vs 40
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 152 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (32 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    32 vs 184
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 2.3% worse value for money
    Mancer Radeon RX 550 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (7.25 vs 7.4).
    7.25 vs 7.41
  • 52.8% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,183 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,183 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
  • 32 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (8 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    8 vs 40
  • 152 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (32 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    32 vs 184
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 42.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,100 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,100 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 90% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (37.9 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    37.86 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 88.3% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (18.9 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    18.93 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
  • 94.6% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (1.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    1.21 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 88.2% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (2,674 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    2,674 points vs 22,638 points
  • 6 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2017 vs 2023).
    April 2017
    2017 vs 2023
  • 91.9% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1,191 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,191 points vs 14,779 points
  • 95.9% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (1.2 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    1.21 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
  • 77.8% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2,674 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    2,674 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 3,840 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (512 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    512 vs 4,352
  • 99% lower INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a lower INT8 performance than the average graphics card (2.4 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    2.4 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 75% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (112 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    112 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 63.2% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (7,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    7,000 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
  • 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 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
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 3).
    2.1 vs 3
  • 90.4% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (2,200 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    2,200 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 1 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (3 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    3 vs 4
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (3840x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    3840x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • 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
  • 62.5% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    8.1 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • 2 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (1 vs 3).
    1 vs 3
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • 10 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (105 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    105 °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.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about Mancer Radeon RX 550

  • Affordable budget-friendly price point for entry-level builds.
  • Low power consumption (50W TDP) and requires no additional PCIe power connectors.
  • Ideal for small form factor (SFF) or office PC upgrades due to its compact size.
  • Handles eSports titles (like CS:GO, Dota 2, and Valorant) well at 1080p medium settings.
  • Supports modern features like HDMI 2.0, DisplayPort 1.4, and HEVC 4K decoding for HTPCs.
  • Reliable for daily tasks, basic video editing, and content creation acceleration.

What customers don't like about Mancer Radeon RX 550

  • Weak performance for AAA games, often requiring sub-1080p resolutions or lowest settings.
  • Limited VRAM (typically 2GB or 4GB) which bottlenecks modern, texture-heavy titles.
  • Outperformed by similarly priced used cards like the RX 460, RX 560, or GTX 1050.
  • Lack of support for modern technologies like Ray Tracing, DLSS, or AV1 decoding.
  • Official Windows driver support is being phased out by AMD.
  • Fan noise can be audible under default curves without manual adjustment.

Verdict

The Mancer Radeon RX 550 is an entry-level graphics card built on AMD's 14nm Polaris architecture, featuring 512 stream processors, a base clock of 1100 MHz (boosting to 1183 MHz), and 4GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit interface. Its primary strengths are its low 50W power consumption, which allows it to run without external power connectors, and its support for modern features like DirectX 12, Vulkan, and AMD FreeSync for smooth 1080p eSports gaming and 4K video playback. However, its main drawbacks include significant performance bottlenecks in modern AAA titles at high settings, limited future-proofing due to its older architecture, and a lower performance-to-value ratio compared to newer budget alternatives like the RX 6400.

Compare Mancer Radeon RX 550 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 Mancer Radeon RX 550 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found