Radeon Pro 5500M vs Quadro M2000

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M2000 with Radeon Pro 5500M, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M2000
2016
4 GB 128-bit, 75 Watt
10.34

Pro 5500M outperforms M2000 by an impressive 70% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking441310
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.63no data
Power efficiency9.4514.19
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameGM206Navi 14
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date8 April 2016 (8 years ago)13 November 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$437.75 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores7681536
Core clock speed796 MHz1000 MHz
Boost clock speed1163 MHz1450 MHz
Number of transistors2,940 million6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt85 Watt
Texture fill rate55.82139.2
Floating-point processing power1.786 TFLOPS4.454 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs4896

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length201 mmno data
Width1" (2.5 cm)no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 type128 BitGDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1653 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 106 GB/s192.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors4x DisplayPortNo outputs
Number of simultaneous displays4no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Desktop Management+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA5.2-

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro M2000 10.34
Pro 5500M 17.59
+70.1%

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.

Quadro M2000 3985
Pro 5500M 6778
+70.1%

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:

Full HD30−35
−96.7%
59
+96.7%
1440p30−35
−86.7%
56
+86.7%
4K14−16
−85.7%
26
+85.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080p14.59no data
1440p14.59no data
4K31.27no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75
+0%
75
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50
+0%
50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 32
+0%
32
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 51
+0%
51
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35
+0%
35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 39
+0%
39
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 54
+0%
54
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Hitman 3 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 41
+0%
41
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 115
+0%
115
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35
+0%
35
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16
+0%
16
+0%

This is how Quadro M2000 and Pro 5500M compete in popular games:

  • Pro 5500M is 97% faster in 1080p
  • Pro 5500M is 87% faster in 1440p
  • Pro 5500M is 86% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.34 17.59
Recency 8 April 2016 13 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 85 Watt

Quadro M2000 has 13.3% lower power consumption.

Pro 5500M, on the other hand, has a 70.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro 5500M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation card while Radeon Pro 5500M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro M2000
Quadro M2000
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
Radeon Pro 5500M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 210 votes

Rate Quadro M2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 265 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 5500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.