Radeon Pro W5500X vs GeForce GT 420M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 420M with Radeon Pro W5500X, including specs and performance data.
Pro W5500X outperforms 420M by a whopping 1790% 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 | 1176 | 347 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 7.03 |
| Power efficiency | 3.11 | 10.83 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 3 September 2010 (15 years ago) | 11 December 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 cores | 96 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1187 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1757 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 125 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.000 | 168.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.192 TFLOPS | 5.398 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 96 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 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 | No outputs | 2x HDMI 2.0b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| 900p | 12
−1733%
| 220−230
+1733%
|
| Full HD | 18
−1567%
| 300−350
+1567%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.00 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1789%
|
170−180
+1789%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1674%
|
550−600
+1674%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−1775%
|
450−500
+1775%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1757%
|
260−270
+1757%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1789%
|
170−180
+1789%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1674%
|
550−600
+1674%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−1757%
|
260−270
+1757%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1789%
|
170−180
+1789%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1674%
|
550−600
+1674%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−1775%
|
75−80
+1775%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−1733%
|
110−120
+1733%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−1700%
|
180−190
+1700%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1757%
|
260−270
+1757%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−1700%
|
90−95
+1700%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
This is how GT 420M and Pro W5500X compete in popular games:
- Pro W5500X is 1733% faster in 900p
- Pro W5500X is 1567% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.93 | 17.58 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 11 December 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 125 Watt |
GT 420M has 443% lower power consumption.
Pro W5500X, on the other hand, has a 1790% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W5500X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 420M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 420M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro W5500X is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
