Radeon Pro 5500M vs GeForce GTX 470
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 470 with Radeon Pro 5500M, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5500M outperforms GTX 470 by a whopping 114% 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 | 560 | 353 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.16 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.66 | 14.43 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 26 March 2010 (15 years ago) | 13 November 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | no data |
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 | 448 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 607 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 215 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 34.05 | 139.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.089 TFLOPS | 4.454 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 40 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 96 |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 640 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1674 MHz (3348 data rate) | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 133.9 GB/s | 192.0 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 | Two Dual Link DVIMini HDMI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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:
| 900p | 52
−112%
| 110−120
+112%
|
| Full HD | 65
+14%
| 57
−14%
|
| 1200p | 53
−108%
| 110−120
+108%
|
| 1440p | 27−30
−119%
| 59
+119%
|
| 4K | 14−16
−129%
| 32
+129%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.37 | no data |
| 1440p | 12.93 | no data |
| 4K | 24.93 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−136%
|
90−95
+136%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−113%
|
30−35
+113%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−130%
|
76
+130%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−136%
|
90−95
+136%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−113%
|
30−35
+113%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−121%
|
50−55
+121%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−95.7%
|
90−95
+95.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−97.1%
|
65−70
+97.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−34.8%
|
31
+34.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−118%
|
60−65
+118%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−62.5%
|
130−140
+62.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−87.9%
|
62
+87.9%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−136%
|
90−95
+136%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
−71.9%
|
208
+71.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−113%
|
30−35
+113%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
−91.4%
|
111
+91.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−121%
|
50−55
+121%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−95.7%
|
90−95
+95.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−97.1%
|
65−70
+97.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
−126%
|
50−55
+126%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
−146%
|
69
+146%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
−147%
|
37
+147%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−118%
|
60−65
+118%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−240%
|
68
+240%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−62.5%
|
130−140
+62.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
−78.8%
|
59
+78.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−113%
|
30−35
+113%
|
| Dota 2 | 64
−67.2%
|
107
+67.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−129%
|
55
+129%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−97.1%
|
65−70
+97.1%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−118%
|
60−65
+118%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22
−95%
|
39
+95%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+186%
|
28
−186%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
−95.7%
|
90−95
+95.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
−129%
|
30−35
+129%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
−100%
|
118
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
−250%
|
35
+250%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−175%
|
22
+175%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−161%
|
107
+161%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
−90.6%
|
160−170
+90.6%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
−194%
|
47
+194%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−150%
|
14−16
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−150%
|
40
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−122%
|
40−45
+122%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
−125%
|
18−20
+125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−127%
|
24−27
+127%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
−131%
|
35−40
+131%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−31.6%
|
25
+31.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−229%
|
21−24
+229%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−133%
|
90−95
+133%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−75%
|
14
+75%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−1200%
|
12−14
+1200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
−92.9%
|
54
+92.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−186%
|
20
+186%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−133%
|
27−30
+133%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
This is how GTX 470 and Pro 5500M compete in popular games:
- Pro 5500M is 112% faster in 900p
- GTX 470 is 14% faster in 1080p
- Pro 5500M is 108% faster in 1200p
- Pro 5500M is 119% faster in 1440p
- Pro 5500M is 129% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 470 is 186% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5500M is 1200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 470 performs better in 1 test (1%)
- Pro 5500M performs better in 65 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (1%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.11 | 15.24 |
| Recency | 26 March 2010 | 13 November 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1280 MB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 215 Watt | 85 Watt |
Pro 5500M has a 114.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 540% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 152.9% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro 5500M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 470 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 470 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro 5500M 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.
