Radeon Pro 5500M vs GeForce GTX 580M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 580M with Radeon Pro 5500M, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5500M outperforms GTX 580M by a whopping 227% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 623 | 319 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.70 | 14.23 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF114 | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 28 June 2011 (13 years ago) | 13 November 2019 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 620 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.68 | 139.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.9523 TFLOPS | 4.454 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 64 | 96 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96.0 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 42
−210%
| 130−140
+210%
|
| Full HD | 57
−3.5%
| 59
+3.5%
|
| 1200p | 42
−210%
| 130−140
+210%
|
| 1440p | 18−20
−233%
| 60
+233%
|
| 4K | 10−12
−240%
| 34
+240%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−258%
|
40−45
+258%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−258%
|
40−45
+258%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−262%
|
76
+262%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−300%
|
55−60
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
−203%
|
90−95
+203%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−196%
|
65−70
+196%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−273%
|
41
+273%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−221%
|
60−65
+221%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−110%
|
130−140
+110%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
−258%
|
40−45
+258%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−195%
|
62
+195%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
−139%
|
208
+139%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−158%
|
111
+158%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−300%
|
55−60
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
−203%
|
90−95
+203%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−196%
|
65−70
+196%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−318%
|
45−50
+318%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−306%
|
69
+306%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−311%
|
37
+311%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−221%
|
60−65
+221%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−386%
|
68
+386%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−110%
|
130−140
+110%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−181%
|
59
+181%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−150%
|
30−33
+150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−149%
|
107
+149%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−293%
|
55
+293%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−196%
|
65−70
+196%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−318%
|
45−50
+318%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−221%
|
60−65
+221%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−179%
|
39
+179%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+121%
|
28
−121%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−33
−203%
|
90−95
+203%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−200%
|
21−24
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−203%
|
118
+203%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−600%
|
35
+600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−450%
|
22
+450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−215%
|
107
+215%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−193%
|
160−170
+193%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−840%
|
47
+840%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−300%
|
40
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−242%
|
40−45
+242%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−225%
|
24−27
+225%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−11
−270%
|
35−40
+270%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
−225%
|
12−14
+225%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−47.1%
|
25
+47.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2200%
|
21−24
+2200%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−268%
|
90−95
+268%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−600%
|
14
+600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−218%
|
54
+218%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−300%
|
20
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−314%
|
27−30
+314%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−220%
|
16−18
+220%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how GTX 580M and Pro 5500M compete in popular games:
- Pro 5500M is 210% faster in 900p
- Pro 5500M is 4% faster in 1080p
- Pro 5500M is 210% faster in 1200p
- Pro 5500M is 233% faster in 1440p
- Pro 5500M is 240% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 580M is 121% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5500M is 2200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 580M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
- Pro 5500M is ahead in 62 tests (91%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.38 | 17.61 |
| Recency | 28 June 2011 | 13 November 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 85 Watt |
Pro 5500M has a 227.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 17.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro 5500M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 580M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 580M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro 5500M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
