AMD Radeon E9550 MXM vs AMD Radeon Sky 500

Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon E9550 MXM and AMD Radeon Sky 500 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark.

 

Differences

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon E9550 MXM

• Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 6 month(s) later
• Around 18% higher core clock speed: 1120 MHz vs 950 MHz
• 2.4x more texture fill rate: 182.3 GTexel / s vs 76 GTexel / s
• Around 80% higher pipelines: 2304 vs 1280
• 2.4x better floating-point performance: 5,834 gflops vs 2,432 gflops
• A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
• Around 58% lower typical power consumption: 95 Watt vs 150 Watt
• 2x more maximum memory size: 8 GB vs 4 GB
• Around 4% higher memory clock speed: 5000 MHz vs 4800 MHz
• 2.1x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s): 112.64 vs 54.669
• Around 34% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s): 1474.586 vs 1096.68
• Around 77% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s): 9.473 vs 5.352
• Around 8% better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s): 96.618 vs 89.633
• 2x better performance in CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s): 507.291 vs 247.642
• Around 85% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 6622 vs 3585
• Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3597 vs 2116
• Around 85% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 6622 vs 3585
• Around 70% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3597 vs 2116

Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon Sky 500

• 2x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 74902 vs 36624
• Around 59% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 5116 vs 3208
• Around 59% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 5116 vs 3208

Compare benchmarks

GPU 1: AMD Radeon E9550 MXM
GPU 2: AMD Radeon Sky 500

Geekbench - OpenCL	GPU 1 GPU 2	36624 74902
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	112.64 54.669
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	1474.586 1096.68
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	9.473 5.352
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	96.618 89.633
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s)	GPU 1 GPU 2	507.291 247.642
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6622 3585
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3597 2116
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3208 5116
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	6622 3585
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3597 2116
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps)	GPU 1 GPU 2	3208 5116

Compare specifications (specs)