Component comparison
GeForce RTX 4090 vs GeForce MX550
GeForce RTX 4090 vs GeForce MX550 — detailed GPU comparison: performance, gaming FPS, specifications.
Advantages
A
GeForce RTX 4090
- + Release year (+2)
- + VRAM (GB) (+14 GB)
- + Memory clock (MHz) (+750 MHz)
- + Bandwidth (GB/s) (+938 GB/s)
- + Memory bus (bit) (+320 bit)
- + TGP / TDP (W) (+95 W)
- + Lithography (nm) (-8 nm)
- + Transistors (M) (+71,600M)
- + CUDA cores (+15360)
- + TMUs (+480)
- + ROPs (+160)
- + FP32 performance (TFLOPS) (+79.88 TFLOPS)
- + Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) (+422.38 GPixel/s)
- + Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) (+1247.76 GTexel/s)
- + Energy efficiency (+9.0)
- + PassMark (overall) (+22628)
- + 3DMark Time Spy (+18781)
- + 3DMark Fire Strike (+40065)
- + Normalized score (+25.9)
B
GeForce MX550
- + Die size (mm²) (+409 mm²)
Detailed spec comparison
| Spec |
Component A
GeForce RTX 4090
|
Component B
GeForce MX550
|
|---|---|---|
| Release year | 2023 (+2) | 2021 |
| VRAM (GB) | 16 GB (+14 GB) | 2 GB |
| Memory type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Memory clock (MHz) | 2250 MHz (+750 MHz) | 1500 MHz |
| Bandwidth (GB/s) | 1034 GB/s (+938 GB/s) | 96 GB/s |
| Memory bus (bit) | 384 bit (+320 bit) | 64 bit |
| TGP / TDP (W) | 120 W (+95 W) | 25 W |
| Lithography (nm) | 4 nm (-8 nm) | 12 nm |
| Transistors (M) | 76,300M (+71,600M) | 4,700M |
| Die size (mm²) | 609 mm² | 200 mm² (+409 mm²) |
| Base clock (MHz) | — | 1065 MHz |
| Boost clock (MHz) | — | 1320 MHz |
| CUDA cores | 16,384 (+15360) | 1,024 |
| TMUs | 512 (+480) | 32 |
| ROPs | 176 (+160) | 16 |
| RT cores | 128 | — |
| Tensor cores | 512 | — |
| FP32 performance (TFLOPS) | 82.58 TFLOPS (+79.88 TFLOPS) | 2.70 TFLOPS |
| Pixel fill rate (GPixel/s) | 443.50 GPixel/s (+422.38 GPixel/s) | 21.12 GPixel/s |
| Texture fill rate (GTexel/s) | 1290.00 GTexel/s (+1247.76 GTexel/s) | 42.24 GTexel/s |
| Energy efficiency | 41.9 (+9.0) | 32.8 |
| PassMark (overall) | 27,047 (+22628) | 4,419 |
| 3DMark Time Spy | 21,251 (+18781) | 2,470 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike | 46,191 (+40065) | 6,126 |
| Geekbench OpenCL | — | 34,068 |
| Geekbench Vulkan | — | 32,369 |
| Normalized score | 75.0 (+25.9) | 49.1 |
Only in component A
DLSS
ReBAR
ray_tracing
In both
CUDA
FPS in games (1080p)
| Game | GeForce RTX 4090 | GeForce MX550 | Delta |
|---|---|---|---|
| Battlefield 5 | 170 FPS | 45 FPS | +277.8% (A) |
| CS:GO | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300 FPS | 55 FPS | +445.5% (A) |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 147 FPS | 21 FPS | +600% (A) |
| Dota 2 | 199 FPS | 111 FPS | +79.3% (A) |
| Far Cry 5 | 173 FPS | 45 FPS | +284.4% (A) |
| Fortnite | 300 FPS | 60 FPS | +400% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 250 FPS | 45 FPS | +455.6% (A) |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 281 FPS | 47 FPS | +497.9% (A) |
| GTA V | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Metro Exodus | 156 FPS | 21 FPS | +642.9% (A) |
| Overwatch | 240 FPS | 240 FPS | ≈ |
| PUBG | 140 FPS | 140 FPS | ≈ |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 218 FPS | 21 FPS | +938.1% (A) |
| The Witcher 3 | 394 FPS | 50 FPS | +688% (A) |
| Valorant | 350 FPS | 95 FPS | +268.4% (A) |
Specs from public sources (PassMark, Geekbench). FPS measured at 1080p medium settings.
Based on the comparison:
GeForce RTX 4090 wins 19 of the comparable criteria.
The choice depends on your use case.
🤔 How to choose
Universal advice for any use case.
- Reliability vs price: reliability (median 50) ↔ price (median 385.1).
- Weight vs CPU: mobility (median 48) ↔ overall performance (median 49.8).
- Upgradeability vs battery: upgradability (median 50) ↔ battery life (median 2.8).