Quadro T2000 Mobile vs Radeon Pro 555

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 555 and Quadro T2000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro 555
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
8.17

T2000 Mobile outperforms Pro 555 by a whopping 154% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking515269
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.5023.83
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code namePolaris 21TU117
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date5 June 2017 (7 years ago)27 May 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 cores7681024
Core clock speed850 MHz1575 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1785 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate40.80114.2
Floating-point processing power1.306 TFLOPS3.656 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs4864

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1275 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth81.6 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA-7.5

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.

Pro 555 8.17
T2000 Mobile 20.77
+154%

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 555 3140
T2000 Mobile 7985
+154%

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 555 5185
T2000 Mobile 13524
+161%

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 HD32
−150%
80−85
+150%
4K16
−150%
40−45
+150%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−131%
35−40
+131%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−156%
40−45
+156%
Elden Ring 21−24
−187%
65−70
+187%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
−154%
65−70
+154%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−131%
35−40
+131%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−156%
40−45
+156%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−167%
85−90
+167%
Metro Exodus 21−24
−155%
55−60
+155%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−104%
45−50
+104%
Valorant 27−30
−200%
80−85
+200%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 28
−136%
65−70
+136%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−131%
35−40
+131%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−156%
40−45
+156%
Dota 2 19
−284%
70−75
+284%
Elden Ring 21−24
−187%
65−70
+187%
Far Cry 5 30
−127%
65−70
+127%
Fortnite 45−50
−127%
100−110
+127%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−167%
85−90
+167%
Grand Theft Auto V 29
−152%
70−75
+152%
Metro Exodus 21−24
−155%
55−60
+155%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 33
−318%
130−140
+318%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−104%
45−50
+104%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−164%
65−70
+164%
Valorant 27−30
−200%
80−85
+200%
World of Tanks 120−130
−91.9%
230−240
+91.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
−154%
65−70
+154%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−131%
35−40
+131%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
−156%
40−45
+156%
Dota 2 57
−28.1%
70−75
+28.1%
Far Cry 5 35−40
−94.3%
65−70
+94.3%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−167%
85−90
+167%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 17
−712%
130−140
+712%
Valorant 27−30
−200%
80−85
+200%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 9−10
−267%
30−35
+267%
Elden Ring 10−12
−218%
35−40
+218%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−11
−240%
30−35
+240%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
−320%
170−180
+320%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
−171%
18−20
+171%
World of Tanks 55−60
−137%
140−150
+137%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
−180%
40−45
+180%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
−70%
16−18
+70%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
−183%
16−18
+183%
Far Cry 5 16−18
−235%
55−60
+235%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−238%
50−55
+238%
Metro Exodus 14−16
−236%
45−50
+236%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−190%
27−30
+190%
Valorant 21−24
−157%
50−55
+157%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−750%
16−18
+750%
Dota 2 18−20
−84.2%
35−40
+84.2%
Elden Ring 5−6
−200%
14−16
+200%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
−94.4%
35−40
+94.4%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−275%
14−16
+275%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−158%
60−65
+158%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−160%
12−14
+160%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
−94.4%
35−40
+94.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
−200%
21−24
+200%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−750%
16−18
+750%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Dota 2 18−20
−84.2%
35−40
+84.2%
Far Cry 5 10−11
−170%
27−30
+170%
Fortnite 8−9
−213%
24−27
+213%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−244%
30−35
+244%
Valorant 8−9
−213%
24−27
+213%

This is how Pro 555 and T2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • T2000 Mobile is 150% faster in 1080p
  • T2000 Mobile is 150% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the T2000 Mobile is 750% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, T2000 Mobile surpassed Pro 555 in all 63 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.17 20.77
Recency 5 June 2017 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 60 Watt

T2000 Mobile has a 154.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro 555 in performance tests.


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.


AMD Radeon Pro 555
Radeon Pro 555
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile
Quadro T2000 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.


3.7 89 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 555 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 398 votes

Rate Quadro T2000 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.