Radeon 9550 / X1050 vs Radeon X1200
Radeon 9550 / X1050
Popular choices:
Radeon X1200
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar Radeon X1200
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon X1200 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 13.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon 9550 / X1050.
| Insight | Radeon 9550 / X1050 | Radeon X1200 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-13.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+13.8%) |
| Longevity | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) (14nm) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) (28nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon X1200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $15 versus $49 for the Radeon 9550 / X1050, it costs 69% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 271.7% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon 9550 / X1050 | Radeon X1200 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+271.7%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) | ✅More affordable ($15) |
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 / X1050 and Radeon X1200
Radeon 9550 / X1050
The Radeon 9550 / X1050 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in March 27 2019. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1082 MHz to 1218 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 29 points.
Radeon X1200
The Radeon X1200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 13 2019. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 730 MHz to 1024 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 33 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Radeon 9550 / X1050 scores 29 versus the Radeon X1200's 33 — the Radeon X1200 leads by 13.8%. The Radeon 9550 / X1050 is built on GCN 4.0 while the Radeon X1200 uses GCN 3.0, both on 14 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 512 (Radeon 9550 / X1050) vs 384 (Radeon X1200). Raw compute: 1.247 TFLOPS (Radeon 9550 / X1050) vs 0.7864 TFLOPS (Radeon X1200). Boost clocks: 1218 MHz vs 1024 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon 9550 / X1050 | Radeon X1200 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 29 | 33+14% |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 3.0 |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 512+33% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.247 TFLOPS+59% | 0.7864 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1218 MHz+19% | 1024 MHz |
| ROPs | 16+100% | 8 |
| TMUs | 32+33% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB+33% | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+300% | 128 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon 9550 / X1050 | Radeon X1200 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (Radeon 9550 / X1050) vs 128 KB (Radeon X1200) — the Radeon 9550 / X1050 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon 9550 / X1050 | Radeon X1200 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+300% | 128 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon 9550 / X1050 draws 50W versus the Radeon X1200's 50W — a 0% difference. The Radeon X1200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon 9550 / X1050) vs 350W (Radeon X1200). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon 9550 / X1050 | Radeon X1200 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W | 50W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 165mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.6 | 0.7+17% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon 9550 / X1050 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the Radeon X1200 launched at $80 and now averages $15. The Radeon X1200 costs 69.4% less ($34 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.6 (Radeon 9550 / X1050) vs 2.2 (Radeon X1200) — the Radeon X1200 offers 266.7% better value.
| Feature | Radeon 9550 / X1050 | Radeon X1200 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $80 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $15-69% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.6 | 2.2+267% |
| Codename | Lexa | Polaris 24 |
| Release | March 27 2019 | May 13 2019 |
| Ranking | #772 | #898 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon 9550 / X1050 and Radeon X1200
