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

NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Laptop review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£700VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):25 W

NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Laptop Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 4 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

5.0/10

Overall score

Score
5.0/ 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 96% of models
Score components

40%

3.6

Technical score

25%

3.6

Reviews score

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 96% of graphics cards
5.6

Value for money

Value for money
5.6/ 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 99% of models
Score components

70%

5.0

Overall score

30%

6.8

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 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 97% of models
Score components

44%

1.8

Performance

24%

1.8

Memory

12%

7.4

Power

11%

8.0

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

6.1

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 97%
3.6

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.6/ 10
✕
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
â–¼ Worse than 98% of models

3.6

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.2

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 98%
?

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~ £700
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Laptop

Based on 2 · 2

Reviewers consistently agree the video memory is too limited.
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Laptop

Technical score
Technical score
3.6/ 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 97% of models
Score components:

44%

1.8

Performance

24%

1.8

Memory

12%

7.4

Power

11%

8.0

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

6.1

Connectivity

3.6
Reviews score
3.6
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.6/ 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 99% of models
Score components:

70%

5.0

Overall score

30%

6.8

Price

5.6
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
2,500 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 2,500 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 93.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.4% 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
4,485 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 4,485 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 94.3% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
2,192 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 2,192 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 94% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
2.7 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 2.7 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 92% 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
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
64 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 64 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 96.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
96 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 96 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 96.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
12,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 12,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 80.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.5% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% 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
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% 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
2
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 2 displays, which is fewer than 97.7% of graphics cards and equal to 2.1% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% 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
?
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
25 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 25 W, which is lower than that of 98.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
25 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 25 W under peak load, which is lower than 99.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
?
Board power limit
35 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 35 W, which is lower than that of 98.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
25 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
?
Weight
?
Show more

NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Laptop vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 88.4% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (25 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    25 W vs 215 W
  • 84.1% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (35 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    35 W vs 220 W
  • 88.6% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (25 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    25 W vs 220 W
  • 7 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (60 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    60 °C vs 67 °C
  • 88.4% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (25 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    25 W vs 215 W
  • 84.1% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (35 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    35 W vs 220 W
  • 88.6% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (25 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    25 W vs 220 W
  • 7 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (60 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    60 °C vs 67 °C
  • 47.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,320 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,320 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 50.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.6/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models

    3.6

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.6 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 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
  • 3 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (0 vs 3).
    0 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
  • 50.0% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.6/ 10
    ✕
    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
    â–¼ Worse than 98% of models

    3.6

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    2 reviews: 0 with a printed score, 2 estimated from the review. 2 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.6 vs 7.2
  • 33.5% worse value for money
    NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Laptop has worse value for money than the average graphics card (5.55 vs 7.4).
    5.55 vs 7.41
  • 34.6% more expensive
    NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Laptop is more expensive than the average graphics card (£700 vs £520).
    £700 vs £520
  • 47.3% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,320 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,320 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
  • 44.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,065 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,065 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 88.8% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (42.2 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    42.24 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 86.9% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (21.1 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    21.12 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
  • 88.1% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (2.7 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    2.7 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 80.2% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (4,485 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    4,485 points vs 22,638 points
  • 83.1% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (2,500 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    2,500 points vs 14,779 points
  • 2 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2021 vs 2023).
    December 2021
    2021 vs 2023
  • 81.8% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (2,192 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    2,192 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 91.7% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.04 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 90.8% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (2.7 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    2.7 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 98.9% lower INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a lower INT8 performance than the average graphics card (2.7 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    2.7 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 3,328 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (1,024 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    1,024 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
  • 78.6% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (96 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    96 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    64 bit vs 192 bit
  • 36.8% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (12,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    12,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 91.7% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (2 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    2 MB vs 24 MB
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 2.4x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (12 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    12 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 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 (6.5 vs 6.8).
    6.5 vs 6.8
  • 79.5% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (4,700 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    4,700 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (3 vs 3.1).
    3 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.
  • 2 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (2 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    2 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
  • 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
  • No HDMI output
    This graphics card does not include HDMI output, the average graphics card does.
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older NVDEC generation
    This graphics card has a lower NVDEC generation than the average graphics card (5 vs 6). The average graphics card offers NVDEC generation 6.
    5 vs 6
  • 3 fewer fans
    This graphics card has fewer fans than the average graphics card (0 vs 3).
    0 vs 3
  • 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.
  • 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
  • 26 dB noisier at idle
    This graphics card has a higher idle noise level than the average graphics card (26 dB vs 0 dB). The average graphics card has an idle noise level of 0 dB.
    26 dB vs 0 dB
  • 9 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (46 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    46 °C vs 37 °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

4.0
Hubwood
≈ estimated
19/06/2022
Hands-on gaming benchmark · 21 titles on a laptop
Verdict
The NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Laptop is hard to recommend, since its 2GB VRAM limits newer games and the RTX 3050 offers far more performance.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
notebookcheck.net
≈ estimated
17/07/2022
Head-to-head test · Entry-level GPU
Verdict
The Nvidia GeForce MX550 is an MX450 successor that matches Intel's Arc A350M and beats integrated graphics, but its 2 GB of memory holds it back.
6.0
notebookcheck.nl
≈ estimated
18/07/2022
Benchmark test · Entry-level GPU
Verdict
The GeForce MX550 is an entry-level chip that roughly matches Intel's Arc A350M in 3DMark, but its 2GB of video memory holds it back.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Laptop

  • Dedicated 2GB GDDR6 VRAM prevents the system from carving out shared system memory for graphics
  • Significant performance jump (up to 2x) compared to standard integrated graphics like Intel Iris Xe or older MX series
  • Capable of running older or lighter titles like GTA V, The Witcher 3, and esports games at playable frame rates
  • Efficient power consumption (typically 25W TDP) making it suitable for thin-and-light productivity laptops
  • Provides a boost for GPU-accelerated creative tasks like photo editing in Photoshop or video rendering

What customers don't like about NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Laptop

  • Small 2GB VRAM buffer is a major bottleneck for modern AAA gaming
  • Performance is only marginally better (roughly 1%) than some high-end integrated graphics like AMD's Ryzen 9 5900HS iGPU
  • Lacks modern Nvidia features such as DLSS, ray tracing, and Tensor core support
  • Based on the older Turing architecture rather than the newer Ampere or Ada Lovelace chips
  • Draws more battery power and generates more heat than just using integrated graphics without offering a massive performance gain

Verdict

The Nvidia GeForce MX550 is an entry-level discrete laptop GPU built on the 12nm Turing TU117 architecture, featuring 1024 CUDA cores, a base clock of 1065 MHz, and a boost clock up to 1320 MHz. It is typically paired with 2GB of dedicated GDDR6 VRAM on a 64-bit memory bus, providing a bandwidth of approximately 96 GB/s with a low power draw (TGP) of 15–25W. Its main characteristics include significantly better performance than standard integrated graphics for light photo/video editing and casual 1080p gaming in titles like GTA V. The primary pros are its high power efficiency for thin-and-light laptops and its ability to free up system RAM by having dedicated video memory. However, its main cons include the small 2GB VRAM buffer that bottlenecks modern AAA titles, the lack of support for advanced features like DLSS or hardware-accelerated ray tracing, and performance that is only marginally better than high-end modern integrated solutions.

Compare NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Laptop 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 NVIDIA GeForce MX550 Laptop and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found