
RADEON E2400 vs RADEON X550

RADEON E2400
Popular choices:

RADEON X550
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 RADEON E2400 is positioned at rank 351 and the RADEON X550 is on rank 334, so the RADEON X550 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar RADEON E2400
Performance Per Dollar RADEON X550
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RADEON E2400 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (512 MB vs 256 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the RADEON X550.
| Insight | RADEON E2400 | RADEON X550 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | Normal Efficiency | Normal Efficiency |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The RADEON X550 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the RADEON X550 holds the technical lead. Priced at $10 (vs $100), it costs 90% less, resulting in a 880.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | RADEON E2400 | RADEON X550 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+880.8%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) | ✅More affordable ($10) |
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 E2400 and RADEON X550

RADEON E2400
The RADEON E2400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 20 2017. It features the GCN 4.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1183 MHz to 1124 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 52 points. Launch price was $79.

RADEON X550
The RADEON X550 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: 51 points. Launch price was $79.
Graphics Performance
The RADEON E2400 scores 52 and the RADEON X550 reaches 51 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The RADEON E2400 is built on GCN 4.0 while the RADEON X550 uses GCN 4.0, both on a 14 nm process. Shader units: 384 (RADEON E2400) vs 512 (RADEON X550). Raw compute: 0.9085 TFLOPS (RADEON E2400) vs 1.211 TFLOPS (RADEON X550). Boost clocks: 1124 MHz vs 1183 MHz.
| Feature | RADEON E2400 | RADEON X550 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 52+2% | 51 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | GCN 4.0 |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 512+33% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.9085 TFLOPS | 1.211 TFLOPS+33% |
| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 1183 MHz+5% |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 32+33% |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 128 KB+33% |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RADEON E2400 | RADEON X550 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The RADEON E2400 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the RADEON X550 has 256 MB. The RADEON E2400 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (RADEON E2400) vs 256 KB (RADEON X550) — the RADEON E2400 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | RADEON E2400 | RADEON X550 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+100% | 0.25 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The RADEON E2400 draws 50W versus the RADEON X550's 50W — a 0% difference. The RADEON X550 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RADEON E2400) vs 350W (RADEON X550). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy.
| Feature | RADEON E2400 | RADEON X550 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W | 50W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Perf/Watt | 1.0 | 1.0 |
Value Analysis
The RADEON E2400 launched at $100 MSRP and currently averages $100, while the RADEON X550 launched at $60 and now averages $10. The RADEON X550 costs 90% less ($90 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.5 (RADEON E2400) vs 5.1 (RADEON X550) — the RADEON X550 offers 920% better value.
| Feature | RADEON E2400 | RADEON X550 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100 | $60-40% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $100 | $10-90% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.5 | 5.1+920% |
| Codename | Lexa | Lexa |
| Release | April 20 2017 | April 20 2017 |
| Ranking | #773 | #668 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















