
RADEON X550 vs RADEON E2400

RADEON X550
Popular choices:

RADEON E2400
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 X550 is positioned at rank 334 and the RADEON E2400 is on rank 351, 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 X550
Performance Per Dollar RADEON E2400
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 X550 | RADEON E2400 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+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 | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| 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 X550 | RADEON E2400 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+880.8%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($10) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($100) |
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 X550 and RADEON E2400

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.

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















