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

XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£80VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):50 W

XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB Review: Compare 117 technical specifications to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB
6.0/10

Overall score

Score
6.0/ 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 89% of models
Score components

40%

3.4

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 89% 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%

6.0

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 68%
3.4

Technical score

Technical score
3.4/ 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%

1.5

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

5.4

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
  • xfx-radeon-rx-550-2gb
xfx-radeon-rx-550-2gb
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 XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB

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...

Technical Specifications of graphics card XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB

Technical score
Technical score
3.4/ 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%

1.5

Memory

12%

8.1

Power

11%

7.3

Features

5%

8.9

Design

4%

5.4

Connectivity

3.4
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%

6.0

Overall score

30%

10

Price

7.2
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,274 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 1,274 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 97.5% 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
2,673 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 2,673 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 97% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
963 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 963 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 97.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
1.23 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 1.23 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 96.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% 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
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
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% 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
1.4
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)
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
59 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 59 W under peak load, which is lower than 96.5% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
350 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 350 W PSU, which is lower than that of 92.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.3% 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
211x 112x 40 mm
Length
170 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >337 mm
This graphics card is 170 mm long, which is shorter than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.7% 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
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

XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB 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
  • 46.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (350 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    350 W vs 650 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
  • 112.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (170 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    170 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
  • 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 °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
  • 6.5x cheaper
    XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£80 vs £520).
    £80 vs £520
  • 6.5x cheaper
    XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB 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).
    Corrected from vendor/prompt-tail contamination using adjacent ratio evidence.
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • Supports multi-GPU linking
    This graphics card supports multi-GPU linking, the average graphics card does not.
  • 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
  • 46.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (350 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    350 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
  • 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
  • 73.2% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (59 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    59 W vs 220 W
  • 10 °C lower load temperature
    This graphics card has a lower load temperature than the average graphics card (57 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    57 °C vs 67 °C
  • 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
  • 112.2 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (170 mm vs 282.2 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 282.2 mm.
    170 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
  • 52% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,203 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,203 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
  • 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.
  • 2.7% worse value for money
    XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB has worse value for money than the average graphics card (7.22 vs 7.4).
    7.22 vs 7.41
  • 52% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,203 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    1,203 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
  • 88.1% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (19.3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    19.25 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.
    1.23 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 88.2% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (2,673 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    2,673 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
  • 91.4% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1,274 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    1,274 points vs 14,779 points
  • 92% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (963 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    963 points vs 12,070.5 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
  • 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
  • 99.5% lower INT8 performance
    This graphics card has a lower INT8 performance than the average graphics card (1.2 TOPS vs 242 TOPS). The average graphics card has INT8 performance of 242 TOPS.
    1.2 TOPS vs 242 TOPS
  • 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
  • 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 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
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • 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.
  • 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
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • 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
  • 2 fewer monitors per output type
    This graphics card supports fewer monitors per output type than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card supports 3 monitors per output type.
    1 vs 3
  • 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
  • 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 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

Third-party reviews

What customers like about XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB

  • Excellent value for budget-conscious builders and entry-level PC setups
  • Low power consumption (50W TDP) and does not require an external power connector
  • Smooth performance in eSports titles like CS:GO and League of Legends at 1080p
  • Easy installation and compatible with older systems or SFF (Small Form Factor) cases
  • Significant performance boost over integrated graphics (iGPU) for web browsing and light gaming
  • Generally quiet operation even under load

What customers don't like about XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB

  • Limited 2GB GDDR5 VRAM is insufficient for modern high-resolution or demanding AAA titles
  • Struggles to maintain high frame rates in modern games without significant setting reductions
  • Poor price-to-performance ratio compared to slightly more expensive cards like the RX 560 or used GTX 960
  • Not suitable for 4K gaming or high-end VR applications
  • Plastic build quality feels cheap to some users

Verdict

The XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB is an entry-level graphics card based on the 14nm Polaris 12 'Lexa' architecture, featuring 512 stream processors, a factory-overclocked boost clock of 1203 MHz, and 2GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with an effective speed of 7 Gbps. Its main characteristics include support for DirectX 12, Vulkan, and modern connectivity via HDMI 2.0b and DisplayPort 1.4a. The primary pros are its high power efficiency with a low 50W TDP that requires no external power connectors, making it ideal for home theater PCs and small form factor builds, and its ability to handle popular esports titles at 1080p. Major cons include its limited 2GB VRAM buffer which struggles with modern AAA titles, significant performance gaps compared to slightly higher-tier cards like the RX 460/560, and reported build quality issues such as loose backplates or wobbly ports on certain units.

Compare XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB 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 XFX Radeon RX 550 2GB and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found