RTX A2000 vs Quadro M5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5500 with RTX A2000, including specs and performance data.
RTX A2000 outperforms M5500 by an impressive 72% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 279 | 147 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 93.82 |
| Power efficiency | 9.41 | 34.62 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GA106 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) | 10 August 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2048 | 3328 |
| Core clock speed | 1140 MHz | 562 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1165 MHz | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 149.1 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.772 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 48 |
| TMUs | 128 | 104 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 104 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 26 |
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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 167 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| 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 | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1753 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 211 GB/s | 288.0 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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
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 |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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 HD | 55−60
−74.5%
| 96
+74.5%
|
| 1440p | 24−27
−79.2%
| 43
+79.2%
|
| 4K | 14−16
−92.9%
| 27
+92.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.68 |
| 1440p | no data | 10.44 |
| 4K | no data | 16.63 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
−88.2%
|
95−100
+88.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−133%
|
84
+133%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−82.9%
|
75−80
+82.9%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
−88.2%
|
95−100
+88.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−48.8%
|
110−120
+48.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−72.2%
|
62
+72.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−82.9%
|
75−80
+82.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−66.2%
|
108
+66.2%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−45.1%
|
140−150
+45.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−64.1%
|
120−130
+64.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−77.8%
|
95−100
+77.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−79.5%
|
130−140
+79.5%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−40.3%
|
200−210
+40.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 50−55
−88.2%
|
95−100
+88.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−48.8%
|
110−120
+48.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−44.4%
|
52
+44.4%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
−19.4%
|
270−280
+19.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−82.9%
|
75−80
+82.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−65.1%
|
180−190
+65.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−50.8%
|
98
+50.8%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−45.1%
|
140−150
+45.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−64.1%
|
120−130
+64.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−77.8%
|
95−100
+77.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
−79.2%
|
129
+79.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−46.3%
|
60
+46.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−79.5%
|
130−140
+79.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
−113%
|
117
+113%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−40.3%
|
200−210
+40.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−48.8%
|
110−120
+48.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−25%
|
45
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−82.9%
|
75−80
+82.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−65.1%
|
180−190
+65.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−40%
|
91
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−64.1%
|
120−130
+64.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
−77.8%
|
95−100
+77.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−79.5%
|
130−140
+79.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
−16.4%
|
64
+16.4%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−40.3%
|
200−210
+40.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−110
−45.1%
|
140−150
+45.1%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
−35%
|
27−30
+35%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−62.6%
|
220−230
+62.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−75.8%
|
58
+75.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−36%
|
34
+36%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−1.7%
|
170−180
+1.7%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
−30.9%
|
230−240
+30.9%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−58.2%
|
85−90
+58.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−100%
|
35−40
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−41.9%
|
61
+41.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−83.7%
|
90−95
+83.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
−65.7%
|
55−60
+65.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
−51.6%
|
47
+51.6%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
−90.9%
|
80−85
+90.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
−73.3%
|
24−27
+73.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−60%
|
56
+60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−25%
|
20
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−42.9%
|
40
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−80.9%
|
190−200
+80.9%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−75.9%
|
50−55
+75.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−66.7%
|
110−120
+66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−42.9%
|
30
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−76.5%
|
60−65
+76.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
−100%
|
30−35
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−111%
|
40−45
+111%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 20−22
−100%
|
40−45
+100%
|
This is how Quadro M5500 and RTX A2000 compete in popular games:
- RTX A2000 is 75% faster in 1080p
- RTX A2000 is 79% faster in 1440p
- RTX A2000 is 93% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro M5500 is 50% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RTX A2000 is 133% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro M5500 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- RTX A2000 is ahead in 63 tests (98%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.59 | 35.35 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 10 August 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 70 Watt |
Quadro M5500 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RTX A2000, on the other hand, has a 71.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.
The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M5500 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5500 is a mobile workstation card while RTX A2000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
