Quadro P5000 Mobile vs Quadro M5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5500 and Quadro P5000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
P5000 Mobile outperforms M5500 by a considerable 46% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 331 | 237 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.08 |
| Power efficiency | 9.81 | 21.50 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (10 years ago) | 11 January 2017 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,885 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2048 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 1140 MHz | 1278 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1165 MHz | 1582 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 149.1 | 202.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.772 TFLOPS | 6.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 128 | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
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 | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1753 MHz | 1502 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 211 GB/s | 192 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| 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 Stereo | no data | + |
| Mosaic | + | + |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | + |
| Optimus | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 50−55 | 70−75
+37.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 150−160
+37.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 55−60
+34.1%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 40−45 | 60−65
+39.5%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 50−55 | 70−75
+37.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85 | 110−120
+37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 150−160
+37.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 55−60
+34.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 90−95
+42.9%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110 | 140−150
+37.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 110−120
+39.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75 | 100−105
+35.1%
|
| Valorant | 140−150 | 200−210
+39.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 50−55 | 70−75
+37.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85 | 110−120
+37.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 150−160
+37.6%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240 | 300−310
+29.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 55−60
+34.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110 | 150−160
+37.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 90−95
+42.9%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110 | 140−150
+37.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 110−120
+39.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75 | 100−105
+38.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45 | 60−65
+42.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75 | 100−105
+35.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55 | 75−80
+38.9%
|
| Valorant | 140−150 | 200−210
+39.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85 | 110−120
+37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 55−60
+34.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110 | 150−160
+37.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 90−95
+42.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 110−120
+39.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75 | 100−105
+35.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55 | 75−80
+38.9%
|
| Valorant | 140−150 | 200−210
+39.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110 | 140−150
+37.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40 | 55−60
+41%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150 | 200−210
+42.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35 | 45−50
+36.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27 | 35−40
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170 | 240−250
+42%
|
| Valorant | 160−170 | 240−250
+44.6%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60 | 80−85
+45.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 24−27
+33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45 | 60−65
+39.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50 | 70−75
+45.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30 | 40−45
+37.9%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50 | 65−70
+44.4%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 14−16 | 21−24
+40%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 24−27
+41.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40 | 50−55
+42.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 21−24
+31.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30 | 40−45
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 100−110 | 140−150
+38.6%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30 | 40−45
+37.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 24−27
+41.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 10−11
+25%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70 | 95−100
+41.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 30−33
+36.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35 | 45−50
+32.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20 | 27−30
+42.1%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22 | 27−30
+35%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.00 | 27.75 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 11 January 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
P5000 Mobile has a 46% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 33% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P5000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M5500 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
