Quadro P4000 Mobile vs Quadro M5500

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M5500 and Quadro P4000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro M5500
2016
8 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
20.59

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking271270
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data8.03
Power efficiency9.4514.23
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGM204GP104
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date8 April 2016 (8 years ago)11 January 2017 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$819.61

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 cores20481792
Core clock speed1140 MHz1227 MHz
Boost clock speed1165 MHz1228 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million7,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate149.1137.4
Floating-point processing power4.772 TFLOPS4.398 TFLOPS
ROPs6464
TMUs128112

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 sizelargelarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1753 MHz1502 MHz
Memory bandwidth211 GB/s192 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Display Port1.21.4
G-SYNC support+-

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+
3D Vision Pro+no data
3D Stereono data+
Mosaic++
VR Ready+no data
nView Display Management++
Optimus++

API compatibility

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

DirectX1212
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.54.5
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA+6.1

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+2.5%
40−45
−2.5%
Elden Ring 65−70
+1.5%
65−70
−1.5%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+2.5%
40−45
−2.5%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+2.4%
85−90
−2.4%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+4.4%
45−50
−4.4%
Valorant 80−85
+3.8%
80−85
−3.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+2.5%
40−45
−2.5%
Dota 2 70−75
+2.9%
70−75
−2.9%
Elden Ring 65−70
+1.5%
65−70
−1.5%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+4.6%
65−70
−4.6%
Fortnite 100−110
+8%
100−105
−8%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+2.4%
85−90
−2.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 70−75
+2.9%
70−75
−2.9%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+5.4%
130−140
−5.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+4.4%
45−50
−4.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+3.8%
80−85
−3.8%
World of Tanks 230−240
+2.2%
230−240
−2.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+2.5%
40−45
−2.5%
Dota 2 70−75
+2.9%
70−75
−2.9%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+4.6%
65−70
−4.6%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+2.4%
85−90
−2.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+5.4%
130−140
−5.4%
Valorant 80−85
+3.8%
80−85
−3.8%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Elden Ring 30−35
+13.3%
30−33
−13.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+1.2%
170−180
−1.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
World of Tanks 130−140
+6.9%
130−140
−6.9%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45
+5%
40−45
−5%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+1.8%
55−60
−1.8%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+6%
50−55
−6%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+4.4%
45−50
−4.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+3.7%
27−30
−3.7%
Valorant 50−55
+6%
50−55
−6%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Elden Ring 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Grand Theft Auto V 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+3.3%
60−65
−3.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+6.3%
16−18
−6.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+3.3%
30−33
−3.3%
Valorant 24−27
+4.2%
24−27
−4.2%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.59 20.67
Recency 8 April 2016 11 January 2017
Chip lithography 28 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 100 Watt

P4000 Mobile has a 0.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro M5500 and Quadro P4000 Mobile.


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 M5500
Quadro M5500
NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Mobile
Quadro P4000 Mobile

Other comparisons

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.


1.6 36 votes

Rate Quadro M5500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 24 votes

Rate Quadro P4000 Mobile 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.