RTX A500 Mobile vs Radeon Pro 5500M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 5500M and RTX A500 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro 5500M
2019
8 GB GDDR6, 85 Watt
17.55
+1.1%

Pro 5500M outperforms RTX A500 Mobile by a minimal 1% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking319324
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency14.2920.03
ArchitectureRDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameNavi 14GA107S
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date13 November 2019 (5 years ago)22 March 2022 (2 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 cores15362048
Core clock speed1000 MHz832 MHz
Boost clock speed1450 MHz1537 MHz
Number of transistors6,400 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology7 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)85 Watt60 Watt (20 - 60 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate139.298.37
Floating-point processing power4.454 TFLOPS6.296 TFLOPS
ROPs3248
TMUs9664
Tensor Coresno data64
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR6GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/s96 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

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.56.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
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.

Pro 5500M 17.55
+1.1%
RTX A500 Mobile 17.36

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
    • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
    • 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
    • 3DMark Time Spy Graphics

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.

Pro 5500M 6786
+1.1%
RTX A500 Mobile 6711

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.

Pro 5500M 14725
+36.1%
RTX A500 Mobile 10818

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Pro 5500M 10399
+36.9%
RTX A500 Mobile 7598

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Pro 5500M 65776
+35.6%
RTX A500 Mobile 48496

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

Pro 5500M 3364
+12.3%
RTX A500 Mobile 2995

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 HD59
+28.3%
46
−28.3%
1440p60
+161%
23
−161%
4K34
+750%
4
−750%

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
Atomic Heart 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
−40%
42
+40%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+2.9%
30−35
−2.9%
Atomic Heart 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Battlefield 5 76
+8.6%
70−75
−8.6%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
−6.7%
32
+6.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+2.9%
30−35
−2.9%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+3.7%
54
−3.7%
Fortnite 90−95
+1.1%
90−95
−1.1%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 41
−9.8%
45−50
+9.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0.8%
120−130
−0.8%
Atomic Heart 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Battlefield 5 62
−12.9%
70−75
+12.9%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+25%
24
−25%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 208
−1.4%
210−220
+1.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+2.9%
30−35
−2.9%
Dota 2 111
+12.1%
95−100
−12.1%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+16.7%
48
−16.7%
Fortnite 90−95
+1.1%
90−95
−1.1%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+2.2%
45−50
−2.2%
Grand Theft Auto V 69
+4.5%
66
−4.5%
Metro Exodus 37
+5.7%
35−40
−5.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 68
+23.6%
55
−23.6%
Valorant 130−140
+0.8%
120−130
−0.8%
Battlefield 5 59
−18.6%
70−75
+18.6%
Counter-Strike 2 30−33
+50%
20
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+2.9%
30−35
−2.9%
Dota 2 107
+8.1%
95−100
−8.1%
Far Cry 5 55
+25%
44
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+2.2%
45−50
−2.2%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 39
+34.5%
29
−34.5%
Valorant 28
−361%
120−130
+361%
Fortnite 90−95
+1.1%
90−95
−1.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 118
−1.7%
120−130
+1.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 35
+16.7%
30
−16.7%
Metro Exodus 22
+4.8%
21−24
−4.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 107
−49.5%
160−170
+49.5%
Valorant 160−170
+0.6%
160−170
−0.6%
Battlefield 5 47
+2.2%
45−50
−2.2%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 40
+11.1%
35−40
−11.1%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 30−33
+3.4%
27−30
−3.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Atomic Heart 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 71
+1.4%
70−75
−1.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 25
−20%
30−33
+20%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 90−95
+1.1%
90−95
−1.1%
Battlefield 5 14
−71.4%
24−27
+71.4%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+300%
2
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Dota 2 54
−7.4%
55−60
+7.4%
Far Cry 5 20
+17.6%
16−18
−17.6%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

This is how Pro 5500M and RTX A500 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • Pro 5500M is 28% faster in 1080p
  • Pro 5500M is 161% faster in 1440p
  • Pro 5500M is 750% 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 Pro 5500M is 300% faster.
  • in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX A500 Mobile is 361% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro 5500M is ahead in 33 tests (49%)
  • RTX A500 Mobile is ahead in 12 tests (18%)
  • there's a draw in 22 tests (33%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 17.55 17.36
Recency 13 November 2019 22 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 7 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 85 Watt 60 Watt

Pro 5500M has a 1.1% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.

RTX A500 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 41.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro 5500M and RTX A500 Mobile.

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.


AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
Radeon Pro 5500M
NVIDIA RTX A500 Mobile
RTX A500

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.


4
272 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2
90 votes

Rate RTX A500 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro 5500M or RTX A500 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.