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

XFX Radeon RX 550 4GB Review | 118 Data compared

Avg. price:~£70VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:128 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):50 W

XFX 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.

XFX Radeon RX 550 4GB
4.1/10

Overall score

Score
4.1/ 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 96% of models
Score components

90%

3.5

Technical score

10%

8.8

User score

â–¼Worse than 96% of graphics cards
5.8

Value for money

Value for money
5.8/ 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 94% of models
Score components

70%

4.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

â–¼Worse than 94%
3.5

Technical score

Technical score
3.5/ 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 98% of models
Score components

44%

1.4

Performance

24%

1.9

Memory

12%

8.2

Power & Cooling

11%

7.4

Platform & Features

5%

8.3

Design

4%

5.9

Connectivity & Media

â–¼Worse than 98%
8.8

User score

User score
8.8/ 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 77% of models
Score components

70%

8.4

User ratings

30%

9.5

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
â–²Better than 77%
  • xfx-radeon-rx-550-4gb
  • xfx-radeon-rx-550-4gb
  • xfx-radeon-rx-550-4gb
  • xfx-radeon-rx-550-4gb
  • xfx-radeon-rx-550-4gb
xfx-radeon-rx-550-4gb
xfx-radeon-rx-550-4gb
xfx-radeon-rx-550-4gb
xfx-radeon-rx-550-4gb
xfx-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 XFX Radeon RX 550 4GB

Technical score
Technical score
3.5/ 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 98% of models
Score components:

44%

1.4

Performance

24%

1.9

Memory

12%

8.2

Power & Cooling

11%

7.4

Platform & Features

5%

8.3

Design

4%

5.9

Connectivity & Media

3.5
User score
User score
8.8/ 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 77% of models
Score components

70%

8.4

User ratings

30%

9.5

Number of reviews

Based on ratings from across the web.
8.8
Popularity
Popularity
9.5/ 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
â–² Better than 88% of models
Popularity:
XFX Radeon RX 550 4GB has a popularity score of 9.5 points, which is higher than that of 88.2% of products in this category.
9.5
Value for money
Value for money
5.8/ 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 94% of models
Score components:

70%

4.1

Overall score

30%

10

Price

5.8
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
1,191 points
Market range: <4k points – >34k points
This graphics card scores 1,191 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 97.9% 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
3,031 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 3,031 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 96.8% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
964 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 964 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 97.3% 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
4.5
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.5, which is older than on 98.1% of graphics cards and equal to 0.7% 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
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.6% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.4% 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
50 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card draws 50 W under peak load, which is lower than 97.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.9% 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 93.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 1.2% of graphics cards.
Board power limit
65 W
Market range: <100 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 65 W, which is lower than that of 95.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.4% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
75 W
Show more
Size
226x 127x 40 mm
Length
170 mm
Market range: <200 mm – >350 mm
This graphics card is 170 mm long, which is shorter than 94.4% of graphics cards and equal in length to 0.8% of graphics cards.
Height
127 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 127 mm tall, which is taller than 53.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.2% 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
276 g
Market range: <500 g – >2k g
This graphics card weighs 276 g, which is lighter than 97.9% of graphics cards and equal in weight to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more

XFX 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
  • 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
  • 115 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (170 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    170 mm vs 285 mm
  • 71.1% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (65 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    65 W vs 225 W
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • 7.57x cheaper
    XFX Radeon RX 550 4GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£70 vs £530).
    £70 vs £530
  • 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
  • 7.57x cheaper
    XFX Radeon RX 550 4GB is cheaper than the average graphics card (£70 vs £530).
    £70 vs £530
  • 9.4% higher user score
    User score
    8.8/ 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
    XFX Radeon RX 550 4GB
    the average graphics card
    XFX Radeon RX 550 4GB has a higher user score than the average graphics card (8.75 vs 8.000).
    8.75 vs 8
  • 2.26x more popular
    XFX Radeon RX 550 4GB is more popular than the average graphics card (9.54 vs 4.2).
    9.54 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
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • 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
  • 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
  • 71.1% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (65 W vs 225 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 225 W.
    65 W vs 225 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
  • 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
  • 115 mm shorter card length
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (170 mm vs 285 mm). The average graphics card has a length of 285 mm.
    170 mm vs 285 mm
  • 73% lighter card weight
    This graphics card is lighter than the average graphics card (276 g vs 1021 g). The average graphics card weighs 1021 g.
    276 g vs 1,021 g
  • 52% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1203 MHz vs 2505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2505 MHz.
    1,203 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.
  • 23.2% worse value for money
    XFX Radeon RX 550 4GB has worse value for money than the average graphics card (5.84 vs 7.2).
    5.84 vs 7.2
  • 52% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (1203 MHz vs 2505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2505 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
  • 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 (38.5 GTexel/s vs 381.2 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 381.2 GTexel/s.
    38.5 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.
    19.25 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
  • 86.6% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (3031 points vs 22653 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22653 points.
    3,031 points vs 22,653 points
  • 91.9% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (1191 points vs 14678.5 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14678.5 points.
    1,191 points vs 14,678.5 points
  • 92% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (964 points vs 12074 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12074 points.
    964 points vs 12,074 points
  • 95.9% 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.
    1.23 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
  • 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 DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • Older encoder generation
    This graphics card uses an older encoder generation than the average graphics card (3.4 vs 8). The average graphics card uses encoder generation 8.
    3.4 vs 8
  • 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
  • Lower VRS tier
    This graphics card supports a lower VRS tier than the average graphics card (Tier 1 vs Tier 2).
    Tier 1 vs Tier 2
  • 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 OpenGL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenGL version than the average graphics card (4.5 vs 4.6).
    4.5 vs 4.6
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (2.2 vs 3).
    2.2 vs 3.0
  • 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
  • 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 (3 vs 3.1).
    3.0 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
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 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/VP9/MPEG-2 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9/MPEG-2/VC-1).
    H.264/H.265/VP9/MPEG-2 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 (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.
  • 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
  • 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
  • 15 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (110 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    110 °C vs 95 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

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

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

V
videocardbenchmark.net
28/04/2026
Summary of the review
Radeon RX 550 - PassMark - Video Card Benchmarks
G
gamestar.de
06/10/2017
Summary of the review
AMD Radeon RX 550 – Viel Spielspaß für unter 100 Euro?
(Translated)Show original
C
ct.nl
01/10/2017
Summary of the review
Goedkope grafische kaarten met 4K voor kantoor-pc's - Ct.nl. Read the full article at ct.nl.
(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 XFX Radeon RX 550 4GB

  • Affordable entry-level pricing for budget builds
  • Low power consumption (50W TDP) requiring no extra PCIe power connectors
  • Significant performance improvement over integrated graphics (iGPU)
  • Compact form factor suitable for small cases and HTPCs
  • Quiet and cool operation with efficient fan cooling
  • Decent performance for e-sports titles like CS:GO, Dota 2, and Valorant at 1080p
  • Hardware support for 4K video decoding and modern features like FreeSync

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

  • Struggles with modern AAA titles, often requiring low settings and 720p resolution
  • Poor price-to-performance ratio compared to the slightly more expensive RX 560 or GTX 1050
  • Not future-proof for upcoming demanding software and games
  • Occasional driver stability issues reported, particularly on Linux systems
  • Some low-profile marketed versions may lack the necessary low-profile bracket in the box
  • Performance is roughly equivalent to older entry-level cards like the GT 1030

Verdict

The XFX Radeon RX 550 4GB is an entry-level graphics card based on the Polaris 12 architecture and 14nm FinFET process, featuring 512 stream processors, a 128-bit memory interface, and 4GB of GDDR5 VRAM with an effective clock speed of 6000-7000 MHz. Main characteristics include a boost clock speed reaching up to 1203 MHz and a low power consumption profile of approximately 50W, which allows it to run without external PCIe power connectors. Key pros include its high efficiency, support for modern display technologies like AMD FreeSync and DirectX 12, and its ability to significantly outperform integrated graphics for eSports titles like Valorant and CS:GO at 1080p. However, notable cons include its limited performance in modern AAA titles, which often require settings to be dropped to low for playable frame rates, and its susceptibility to being outperformed by older but more powerful cards in the same price bracket, such as the RX 460.

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

No results found