
RADEON 9550 vs GeForce PCX 5900

RADEON 9550
Popular choices:

GeForce PCX 5900
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. The RADEON 9550 is positioned at rank #363 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar RADEON 9550
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RADEON 9550 is significantly newer (2017 vs 2011). The RADEON 9550 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce PCX 5900 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RADEON 9550 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.9% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce PCX 5900.
| Insight | RADEON 9550 | GeForce PCX 5900 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.9%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the RADEON 9550 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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 RADEON 9550 and GeForce PCX 5900

RADEON 9550
The RADEON 9550 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 20 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1100 MHz to 1183 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 35 points. Launch price was $79.

GeForce PCX 5900
The GeForce PCX 5900 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 24 2011. It features the Fermi 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 607 MHz. It has 1024 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 365W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 34 points. Launch price was $699.
Graphics Performance
The RADEON 9550 scores 35 and the GeForce PCX 5900 reaches 34 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The RADEON 9550 is built on GCN 4.0 while the GeForce PCX 5900 uses Fermi 2.0, both on 14 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 512 (RADEON 9550) vs 1,024 (GeForce PCX 5900). Raw compute: 1.211 TFLOPS (RADEON 9550) vs 1.244 TFLOPS ×2 (GeForce PCX 5900).
| Feature | RADEON 9550 | GeForce PCX 5900 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 35+3% | 34 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Fermi 2.0 |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 512 | 1024 ×2+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.211 TFLOPS | 1.244 TFLOPS ×2+3% |
| ROPs | 16 | 48 ×2+200% |
| TMUs | 32 | 64 ×2+100% |
| L1 Cache | 0.13 MB | 1 MB+669% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 768 KB+200% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RADEON 9550 | GeForce PCX 5900 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 256 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (RADEON 9550) vs 768 KB (GeForce PCX 5900) — the GeForce PCX 5900 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | RADEON 9550 | GeForce PCX 5900 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.25 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 768 KB+200% |
Power & Dimensions
The RADEON 9550 draws 50W versus the GeForce PCX 5900's 365W — a 151.8% difference. The RADEON 9550 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RADEON 9550) vs 350W (GeForce PCX 5900). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy.
| Feature | RADEON 9550 | GeForce PCX 5900 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-86% | 365W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Perf/Watt | 0.7+600% | 0.1 |
Value Analysis
The RADEON 9550 launched at $129 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the GeForce PCX 5900 launched at $0 and now averages $0. The GeForce PCX 5900 costs 100+% less ($30 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 1.2 (RADEON 9550) vs Infinity (GeForce PCX 5900) — the GeForce PCX 5900 offers Infinity% better value. The RADEON 9550 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2011).
| Feature | RADEON 9550 | GeForce PCX 5900 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $129 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30 | $0-100% |
| Performance per Dollar | 1.2 | Infinity |
| Codename | Lexa | GF110 |
| Release | April 20 2017 | March 24 2011 |
| Ranking | #668 | #555 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















