wait that cant be right, the mx550 looks like a rebranded 1650m
that should be like, significantly more powerful than the anemic vega 8

Meaning this is what nvidia wants to charge sheeps, mx550 for 600 usd hehe

Selayawait that cant be right, the mx550 looks like a rebranded 1650m
that should be like, significantly more powerful than the anemic vega 8

I gave up on making sense of laptop parts, because you can get the same exact GPU model but mystery TDP values and RAM width that gives you 5 different performance variants of the one model

Vega 8 is a integrated GPU. Why would you compare a desktop or mobile part for that matter? Vega is around for some being as well. The RDNA(2) is going to take over in APU's.

The headline should be "loses to iGPU". If this is true performance then it's very slow for a dGPU. There is also the MX570 based on GA108 that should fare better since MX550 is based on old Turing TU117.

I will take the results from benchmark with a big pinch of salt. In my past testing comparing a Vega 11 (Ryzen 5 3400G) with the MX450, the former is almost as quick when running benchmarks, i.e. 3D Mark and Unigine Heaven. But in games, the dedicated GPU tends to pull ahead, unless it is let down by poor cooling. The Nvidia MX series GPUs are always used in slim laptops, thus, the cooling solution is generally the reason for poor performance due to throttling. Other reason is when one is gaming at a setting that is too high for the GPU due to the 2GB dedicated VRAM. As a result, performance will plummet once it exceeds the available dedicated VRAM. In 2022, I feel it makes no sense to keep 2GB VRAM for the MX series since it is quite common for newer games to be quite VRAM hungry.

Selayawait that cant be right, the mx550 looks like a rebranded 1650m

You can thank Nvidia for that, they made sure to destroy any kind of connection between nomenclature and expected performance.

So a video card with a cut down GPU that is relatively easy to produce matches the performance (in a synthetic benchmark) of an integrated GPU that was released a year ago.

In games that the 2GB won't kill the performance (Vega supports 4GB) it should be on average at least +20% if running at base always, up to +45% when running in turbo always.
TPU places it at RX570 -20% performance level (1080p) which I think is optimistic:
www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/geforce-mx550.c3860

Shouldn't the title be the other way around? Like "iGPU in vega renders semi-dedicated GPU named MX550 obsolete"?

As per Dr Su, 19 million of notebooks with MX bazinga are sold around annually (or was it quarterly? yikes)

Selayawait that cant be right, the mx550 looks like a rebranded 1650m
that should be like, significantly more powerful than the anemic vega 8

The MX550 is not close to the 1650m:

Half the board power (so lower clocks)
Half the TMUs
Half the ROPs
Half the memory
Half the memory bandwidth

I know, still should like blow up the vega 8 without breaking a sweat
i mean, the mx450 is like, totally trouncing the vega 8 already so yeah

I dont know what to think of these results, does it complement how good the 5900HS GPU is or is it saying the MX550 is just that bad.

GhostRyderI dont know what to think of these results, does it complement how good the 5900HS GPU is or is it saying the MX550 is just that bad.

Pro nvidia website wants to make AMD look bad, confuses everyone instead

I've seen this 'news' reposted to a dozen places, and all the comments are asking "what kind of f*cked up comparison is this?"

JismVega 8 is a integrated GPU. Why would you compare a desktop or mobile part for that matter? Vega is around for some being as well. The RDNA(2) is going to take over in APU's.

Think it's just for comparison. If i buy this it'll perform much the same as this. I wouldn't read too much into it.

MusselsPro nvidia website wants to make AMD look bad, confuses everyone instead

I've seen this 'news' reposted to a dozen places, and all the comments are asking "what kind of f*cked up comparison is this?"

To me it just says 'Buy the AMD APU' over this.

MusselsPro nvidia website wants to make AMD look bad, confuses everyone instead

I've seen this 'news' reposted to a dozen places, and all the comments are asking "what kind of f*cked up comparison is this?"

Actually it makes the new MX 550 looks bad, because it barely beats an integrated GPU. Mind you, without contest it's hard to tell that, for instance, the Vega 7 of a more medium range 5600U gets just 2101 on Passmark. But honestly you know what I find even more puzzling than this piece of news appearing everywhere? A staff member criticising it after the TPU staff just reposted it.

So nvidia made a dGPU that matches an iGPU in speed. Um... wow... I guess? :wtf: