Radeon RX 5500 XT vs Quadro M6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M6000 with Radeon RX 5500 XT, including specs and performance data.
M6000 outperforms 5500 XT by a substantial 30% 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 | 234 | 302 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 80 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.41 | 30.14 |
| Power efficiency | 8.72 | 12.95 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | RDNA 1 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM200 | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 21 March 2015 (11 years ago) | 12 December 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $4,199.99 | $169 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 5500 XT has 2038% better value for money than Quadro M6000.
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 | 3072 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 988 MHz | 1607 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1114 MHz | 1845 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 6.4 billion |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 213.9 | 162.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.844 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 96 | 32 |
| TMUs | 192 | 88 |
| L1 Cache | 1.1 MB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 3 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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | 180 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 1x 8-pin |
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 | 12 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1653 MHz | 14000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 317.4 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | - |
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
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 | 95−100
+25%
| 76 |
| 1440p | 50−55
+19%
| 42 |
| 4K | 30−35
+25%
| 24 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 44.21 | 2.22
+95%
|
| 1440p | 84.00 | 4.02
+95.2%
|
| 4K | 140.00 | 7.04
+95%
|
- RX 5500 XT has 95% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RX 5500 XT has 95% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- RX 5500 XT has 95% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 98 | 98 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 254 | 254 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78 | 78 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 77 | 77 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 75 | 75 |
| Battlefield 5 | 74 | 74 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 196 | 196 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 61 | 61 |
| Far Cry 5 | 105 | 105 |
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 78 | 78 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90 | 85−90 |
| Valorant | 150−160 | 150−160 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 43 | 43 |
| Battlefield 5 | 71 | 71 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 98 | 98 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250 | 240−250 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45 | 45 |
| Dota 2 | 149 | 149 |
| Far Cry 5 | 96 | 96 |
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 66 | 66 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94 | 94 |
| Metro Exodus | 52 | 52 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90 | 85−90 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95 | 95 |
| Valorant | 150−160 | 150−160 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 68 | 68 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40 | 40 |
| Dota 2 | 143 | 143 |
| Far Cry 5 | 89 | 89 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 56 | 56 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90 | 85−90 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 58 | 58 |
| Valorant | 114 | 114 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120 | 110−120 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55 | 55 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44 | 44 |
| Metro Exodus | 31 | 31 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 180−190 | 180−190 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55 | 55 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20 | 20 |
| Far Cry 5 | 60 | 60 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 41 | 41 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40 | 35−40 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55 | 50−55 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13 | 13 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 42 | 42 |
| Metro Exodus | 19 | 19 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31 | 31 |
| Valorant | 120−130 | 120−130 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35 | 35 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8 | 8 |
| Dota 2 | 78 | 78 |
| Far Cry 5 | 30 | 30 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21 | 21 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24 | 21−24 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27 | 24−27 |
This is how Quadro M6000 and RX 5500 XT compete in popular games:
- Quadro M6000 is 25% faster in 1080p
- Quadro M6000 is 19% faster in 1440p
- Quadro M6000 is 25% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 28.00 | 21.62 |
| Recency | 21 March 2015 | 12 December 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 130 Watt |
Quadro M6000 has a 30% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 5500 XT, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 48% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 5500 XT in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M6000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 5500 XT is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
