
NVS 510 vs Radeon HD 6550A

NVS 510
Popular choices:

Radeon HD 6550A
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The NVS 510 is positioned at rank 321 and the Radeon HD 6550A is on rank 221, so the Radeon HD 6550A offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar NVS 510
Performance Per Dollar Radeon HD 6550A
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon HD 6550A is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 4.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the NVS 510 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | NVS 510 | Radeon HD 6550A |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+4.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The NVS 510 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the NVS 510 holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $30), it costs 50% less, resulting in a 92.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | NVS 510 | Radeon HD 6550A |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+92.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($30) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of NVS 510 and Radeon HD 6550A

NVS 510
The NVS 510 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 4 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 902 MHz to 1033 MHz. It has 512 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 68W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 680 points.

Radeon HD 6550A
The Radeon HD 6550A is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 19 2011. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 600 MHz. It has 480 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 45W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 708 points.
Graphics Performance
The NVS 510 scores 680 and the Radeon HD 6550A reaches 708 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The NVS 510 is built on Maxwell while the Radeon HD 6550A uses TeraScale 2, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 512 (NVS 510) vs 480 (Radeon HD 6550A). Raw compute: 1.058 TFLOPS ×2 (NVS 510) vs 0.576 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 6550A).
| Feature | NVS 510 | Radeon HD 6550A |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 680 | 708+4% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | TeraScale 2 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 512 ×2+7% | 480 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.058 TFLOPS ×2+84% | 0.576 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 ×2+100% | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 ×2+33% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB+433% | 48 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | NVS 510 | Radeon HD 6550A |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The NVS 510 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon HD 6550A has 512 MB. The NVS 510 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (NVS 510) vs 0.25 MB (Radeon HD 6550A) — the NVS 510 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | NVS 510 | Radeon HD 6550A |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB+300% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The NVS 510 draws 68W versus the Radeon HD 6550A's 45W — a 40.7% difference. The Radeon HD 6550A is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (NVS 510) vs 350W (Radeon HD 6550A). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin.
| Feature | NVS 510 | Radeon HD 6550A |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 68W | 45W-34% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 160mm | — |
| Height | 69mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 65°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 10.0 | 15.7+57% |
Value Analysis
The NVS 510 launched at $449 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the Radeon HD 6550A launched at $30 and now averages $30. The NVS 510 costs 50% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 45.3 (NVS 510) vs 23.6 (Radeon HD 6550A) — the NVS 510 offers 91.9% better value. The NVS 510 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2011).
| Feature | NVS 510 | Radeon HD 6550A |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $449 | $30-93% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-50% | $30 |
| Performance per Dollar | 45.3+92% | 23.6 |
| Codename | GM107 | Onega |
| Release | November 4 2015 | April 19 2011 |
| Ranking | #826 | #926 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















