Graphics 2 Xe3 Wildcat Lake iGPU vs Radeon Pro 5500M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 5500M with Graphics 2 Xe3 Wildcat Lake iGPU, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5500M outperforms Graphics 2 Xe3 Wildcat Lake iGPU by a whopping 162% 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 | 375 | 645 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 14.68 | no data |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Xe3 (2026) |
| GPU code name | Navi 14 | Wildcat Lake |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 November 2019 (6 years ago) | 1 May 2026 (less than a year ago) |
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 | 1536 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1450 MHz | 2600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,400 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 85 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 139.2 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.454 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 96 | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | no data |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR6 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | no data |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 57
+159%
| 22
−159%
|
| 1440p | 59
+181%
| 21−24
−181%
|
| 4K | 32
+167%
| 12−14
−167%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+180%
|
14−16
−180%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+203%
|
30−33
−203%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+169%
|
12−14
−169%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 35−40
+250%
|
10−11
−250%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+180%
|
14−16
−180%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+181%
|
27−30
−181%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+203%
|
30−33
−203%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+169%
|
12−14
−169%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+184%
|
18−20
−184%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+137%
|
35−40
−137%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+143%
|
27−30
−143%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+165%
|
21−24
−165%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+85.5%
|
65−70
−85.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 40−45
+180%
|
14−16
−180%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 62
+130%
|
27−30
−130%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+203%
|
30−33
−203%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 208
+102%
|
100−110
−102%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+169%
|
12−14
−169%
|
| Dota 2 | 111
+178%
|
40−45
−178%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+184%
|
18−20
−184%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+137%
|
35−40
−137%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+143%
|
27−30
−143%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 69
+306%
|
17
−306%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+165%
|
21−24
−165%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+300%
|
16−18
−300%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+85.5%
|
65−70
−85.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+119%
|
27−30
−119%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40
+169%
|
12−14
−169%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
+168%
|
40−45
−168%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55
+189%
|
18−20
−189%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+143%
|
27−30
−143%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+165%
|
21−24
−165%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+129%
|
16−18
−129%
|
| Valorant | 28
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 90−95
+137%
|
35−40
−137%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+191%
|
10−12
−191%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 118
+146%
|
45−50
−146%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+483%
|
6−7
−483%
|
| Metro Exodus | 22
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 107
+168%
|
40−45
−168%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+133%
|
60−65
−133%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+370%
|
10−11
−370%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+233%
|
12−14
−233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+167%
|
14−16
−167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 35−40
+208%
|
12−14
−208%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 71
+163%
|
27−30
−163%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 25
+47.1%
|
16−18
−47.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+215%
|
24−27
−215%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 54
+200%
|
18−20
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
This is how Pro 5500M and Graphics 2 Xe3 Wildcat Lake iGPU compete in popular games:
- Pro 5500M is 159% faster in 1080p
- Pro 5500M is 181% faster in 1440p
- Pro 5500M is 167% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5500M is 1200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Pro 5500M surpassed Graphics 2 Xe3 Wildcat Lake iGPU in all 54 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.11 | 6.16 |
| Recency | 13 November 2019 | 1 May 2026 |
Pro 5500M has a 162% higher aggregate performance score.
Graphics 2 Xe3 Wildcat Lake iGPU, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years.
The Radeon Pro 5500M is our recommended choice as it beats the Graphics 2 Xe3 Wildcat Lake iGPU in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro 5500M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Graphics 2 Xe3 Wildcat Lake iGPU is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
