Radeon Pro 5500M vs R7 260X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 260X with Radeon Pro 5500M, including specs and performance data.

R7 260X
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 115 Watt
8.27

Pro 5500M outperforms R7 260X by a whopping 112% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking502305
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.39no data
Power efficiency4.9814.31
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameBonaireNavi 14
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)13 November 2019 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$139 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 cores8961536
Core clock speedno data1000 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHz1450 MHz
Number of transistors2,080 million6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)115 Watt85 Watt
Texture fill rate61.60139.2
Floating-point processing power1.971 TFLOPS4.454 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs5696

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
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Length170 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth104 GB/s192.0 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.36.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.02.0
Vulkan-1.2.131

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.

R7 260X 8.27
Pro 5500M 17.56
+112%

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.

R7 260X 3190
Pro 5500M 6774
+112%

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.

R7 260X 4380
Pro 5500M 10399
+137%

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 HD24−27
−133%
56
+133%
1440p24−27
−125%
54
+125%
4K14−16
−136%
33
+136%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.79no data
1440p5.79no data
4K9.93no 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 R7 260X and Pro 5500M compete in popular games:

  • Pro 5500M is 133% faster in 1080p
  • Pro 5500M is 125% faster in 1440p
  • Pro 5500M is 136% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.27 17.56
Recency 8 October 2013 13 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 115 Watt 85 Watt

Pro 5500M has a 112.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 35.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 5500M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 260X in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 260X is a desktop 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.


AMD Radeon R7 260X
Radeon R7 260X
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.


3.8 389 votes

Rate Radeon R7 260X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 259 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.