OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Graphics cards Methodology v1.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v1.0: technical specifications plus authentic consumer ratings, with 0% commercial bias.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v1.0

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB Review | 118 Data compared

Avg. price:~£95VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):50 W

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB Review: Compare 118 technical specifications and user reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB
4.2/10

Overall score

Score
4.2/ 10
✕
What it is
An overall evaluation of the graphics card's quality, based on technical analyses and user reviews.
When it matters
When you need a quick reference to identify the best graphics cards on the market.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 95% of models
Score components

90%

3.6

Technical score

10%

9.2

User score

â–¼Worse than 95% of graphics cards
5.9

Value for money

Value for money
5.9/ 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 93% of models
Score components

70%

4.2

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 93%
3.6

Technical score

Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components

44%

1.4

Performance

24%

2.4

Memory

12%

8.1

Power & Cooling

11%

7.1

Platform & Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

5.5

Connectivity & Media

â–¼Worse than 97%
9.2

User score

User score
9.2/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 89% of models
Score components

70%

8.9

User ratings

30%

9.9

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
â–²Better than 89%
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-550-4gb
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-550-4gb
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-550-4gb
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-550-4gb
  • sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-550-4gb
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-550-4gb
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-550-4gb
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-550-4gb
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-550-4gb
sapphire-pulse-radeon-rx-550-4gb
Best prices
*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.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB

Technical score
Technical score
3.6/ 10
✕
What it is
An assessment of technical performance for products in the Graphics cards category across these key areas: Performance, Memory, Platform & Features, Connectivity & Media, Power & Cooling, Design.
When it matters
When you want to compare graphics cards based on technical performance and available features.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 97% of models
Score components:

44%

1.4

Performance

24%

2.4

Memory

12%

8.1

Power & Cooling

11%

7.1

Platform & Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

5.5

Connectivity & Media

3.6
User score
User score
9.2/ 10
✕
What it is
A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–² Better than 89% of models
Score components

70%

8.9

User ratings

30%

9.9

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
9.2
Popularity
Popularity
9.9/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator based on the number of reviews received by the graphics card.
When it matters
When you prefer a graphics card that has already been chosen and reviewed by many other users.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
★ Better than 91% of models
Popularity:
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB has a popularity score of 9.9 points, which is higher than that of 91.2% of products in this category.
9.9
Value for money
Value for money
5.9/ 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 93% of models
Score components:

70%

4.2

Overall score

30%

10

Price

5.9
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,150 points
Market range: <4k points – >34k points
This graphics card scores 1,150 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 98.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >25k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.2% of graphics cards and equal to 16.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
2,673 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 2,673 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 97.3% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
962 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 962 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 97.6% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Floating-point performance
1.23 TFLOPS
Market range: <4.38 TFLOPS – >57.42 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.23 TFLOPS floating-point performance, which is lower than that of 97.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >24 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 88% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR5
GDDR version
GDDR5
This graphics card uses GDDR5 memory, which is older than on 85.9% of graphics cards and equal to 13.2% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
128 bit
Market range: <64 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 128 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 69.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 26% 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 94.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.7% of graphics cards and equal to 20.3% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 76.7% of graphics cards and equal to 22.2% 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 16.9% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.3
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.3, which is older than on 79.4% of graphics cards and equal to 15.7% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 1.9% of graphics cards and equal to 98.1% 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 91.8% of graphics cards and equal to 5.9% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
5120x2880
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 5120x2880, which is lower than that of 91.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.7% of graphics cards and equal to 8.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort version
1.4
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4, which is older than on 80.6% of graphics cards and equal to 13.3% 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 87.8% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
50 W
Market range: <60 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 50 W, which is lower than that of 96.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.1% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
65 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card draws 65 W under peak load, which is lower than 95.7% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
400 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 400 W PSU, which is lower than that of 90.5% of graphics cards and equal to that of 2.6% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
50 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 50 W, which is lower than that of 97.1% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
50 W
Show more
Size
158x 112x 28 mm
Length
158 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >350 mm
This graphics card is 158 mm long, which is shorter than 98% 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 76.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 3.1% of graphics cards.
Slot width
1.5 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 1.5 slot/s, which is slimmer than 96% of graphics cards and equal in width to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Weight
470 g
Market range: <500 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 470 g, which is lighter than 92.9% of graphics cards and equal in weight to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more

Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryPlatform & FeaturesConnectivity & MediaPower & CoolingDesign
  • 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
  • 3.43x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (6000 MHz vs 1750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1750 MHz.
    6,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 21.33x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (512 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    512 MB vs 24 MB
  • 38.5% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (400 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    400 W vs 650 W
  • 127 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (158 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    158 mm vs 285 mm
  • 1 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1.5 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1.5 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 77.8% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (50 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    50 W vs 225 W
  • 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
  • 15% higher user score
    User score
    9.2/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    A rating that combines user reviews and the total number of reviews received by the graphics card.
    When it matters
    When you want to understand how a graphics card performs in real use and how reliable it is in terms of performance, temperatures, noise, stability, and long-term ownership.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB
    the average graphics card
    Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB has a higher user score than the average graphics card (9.20 vs 8.000).
    9.2 vs 8
  • 5.58x cheaper
    Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£95 vs £530).
    £95 vs £530
  • 2.35x more popular
    Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB is more popular than the average graphics card (9.91 vs 4.2).
    9.91 vs 4.22
  • Better FP64 ratio
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 3.43x faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (6000 MHz vs 1750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1750 MHz.
    6,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 21.33x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (512 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    512 MB vs 24 MB
  • 65.1% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (103 mm² vs 295 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 295 mm².
    103 mm² vs 295 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
  • 38.5% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (400 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    400 W vs 650 W
  • 77.8% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (50 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    50 W vs 225 W
  • 15 °C higher thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a higher thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (80 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    80 °C vs 95 °C
  • 70.5% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (65 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    65 W vs 220 W
  • 50% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (6 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    6 W vs 12 W
  • 7 °C lower idle temperature
    This graphics card has a lower idle temperature than the average graphics card (30 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    30 °C vs 37 °C
  • 127 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (158 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    158 mm vs 285 mm
  • 1 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1.5 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1.5 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
  • 54% lighter card weight
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (470 g vs 1021 g). The average graphics card weighs 1021 g.
    470 g vs 1,021 g
  • 51.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1206 MHz vs 2505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2505 MHz.
    1,206 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
    128 bit vs 256 bit
  • 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
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card has a higher process node than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node of 5 nm.
    14 nm vs 5 nm
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 21.1% worse value for money
    Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB has worse value for money than the average graphics card (5.94 vs 7.2).
    5.94 vs 7.2
  • 51.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1206 MHz vs 2505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2505 MHz.
    1,206 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
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 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
  • 42.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1100 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,100 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 89.9% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (38.6 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 381.2 GTexel/s.
    38.59 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s
  • 88.2% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (19.3 GPixel/s vs 163.2 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 163.2 GPixel/s.
    19.3 GPixel/s vs 163.2 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 22.57 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.57 TFLOPS.
    1.23 TFLOPS vs 22.57 TFLOPS
  • 88.2% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (2673 points vs 22653 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22653 points.
    2,673 points vs 22,653 points
  • 92.2% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1150 points vs 14678.5 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14678.5 points.
    1,150 points vs 14,678.5 points
  • 92% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (962 points vs 12074 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12074 points.
    962 points vs 12,074 points
  • 95.8% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (1.2 TFLOPS vs 29.7 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.725 TFLOPS.
    1.24 TFLOPS vs 29.725 TFLOPS
  • 94.6% lower compute throughput
    This graphics card has a lower compute throughput than the average graphics card (1.2 TFLOPS vs 22.98 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has compute throughput of 22.98 TFLOPS.
    1.23 TFLOPS vs 22.98 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
  • 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
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (128 bit vs 256 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 256 bit.
    128 bit vs 256 bit
  • 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 (7000 MHz vs 19000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19000 MHz.
    7,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 vs 128). The average graphics card has 128 L1 cache.
    16 vs 128
  • 2.8x larger process node
    This graphics card has a higher process node than the average graphics card (14 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a process node 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).
    3.0 vs 4.0
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • 6 older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2017 vs 2023).
    April 2017
    2,017 vs 2,023
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • Worse SAM support
    This graphics card offers worse SAM support than the average graphics card (no vs yes).
  • 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 encoder generation
    This graphics card uses an older encoder generation than the average graphics card (5 vs 8). The average graphics card uses encoder generation 8.
    5 vs 8
  • 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 OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2 vs 3).
    2.0 vs 3.0
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (5 vs 6.8).
    5.0 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • 90.4% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (2200 million vs 22900 million). The average graphics card has 22900 million transistors.
    2,200 million vs 22,900 million
  • 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.
    No vs yes
  • 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
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • 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
  • Narrower decode codec support
    This graphics card supports narrower hardware decode codec support than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/AV1/VC-1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1).
    H.264/H.265/AV1/VC-1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.0b vs 2.1).
    2.0b vs 2.1
  • 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
  • 73% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 20 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 20 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 20 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.
    No vs yes
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.
    No vs yes

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

I
igorslab.de
25/04/2017
Summary of the review
Genügsamer Wadlbeißer: AMD Radeon RX 550 im Test
(Translated)Show original
H
hardwareluxx.de
12/05/2017
Summary of the review
Sapphire Radeon RX 550 Pulse im Test - Hardwareluxx
(Translated)Show original
G
gamestar.de
06/10/2017
Summary of the review
AMD Radeon RX 550 – Viel Spielspaß für unter 100 Euro?
(Translated)Show original

Third-party reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
Reviews last updated: June 2026 · How we calculate this

What we like about Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB

  • Extremely quiet operation, with fans that often turn off under light loads.
  • Very low power consumption and does not require an external PCIe power connector.
  • Compact single-slot design makes it ideal for small form factor (SFF) or older PC upgrades.
  • Excellent native Linux compatibility and driver support.
  • Provides a significant performance leap over most integrated graphics (iGPUs) for 1080p eSports titles.
  • Supports modern features like 4K video decoding, HDMI 2.0, and FreeSync.

What we don't like about Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB

  • Poor value for money; often priced too close to significantly faster cards like the RX 560 or GTX 1050.
  • Struggles with modern AAA games, often requiring a drop to 720p resolution or 'Low' settings to be playable.
  • The 4GB of VRAM is often considered overkill because the GPU chip itself isn't powerful enough to fully utilize it in demanding scenarios.
  • Known driver installation issues where the included software may fail to update correctly.

Verdict

The Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB is a compact, entry-level GPU featuring 512 stream processors, a 1206 MHz boost clock, and 4GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. Built on the Polaris architecture, it is highly valued for its low 65W TDP, which eliminates the need for external power connectors, and its small form factor ideal for home theater PCs and light eSports gaming at 1080p. However, its performance is limited for modern AAA titles, and it lacks the power for high-refresh-rate gaming or intensive workstation tasks.

Compare Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB 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 Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 550 4GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found