Quadro P500 vs GeForce GTX 550 Ti
Aggregated performance score
Quadro P500 outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 5% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary Details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 650 | 640 |
| Place by popularity | 66 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 0.28 | 2.53 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GF116 | GP108 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 15 March 2011 (13 years ago) | 14 November 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
| Current price | $197 (1.3x MSRP) | $300 |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro P500 has 804% better value for money than GTX 550 Ti.
Detailed Specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 256 |
| CUDA cores | 192 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 1455 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1519 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 28.8 billion/sec | 21.25 |
| Floating-point performance | 691.2 gflops | 679.9 gflops |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 550 Ti and Quadro P500 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 8.25" (21 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | One 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | no data |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4.1 GB/s | 5012 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 98.4 GB/s | 32.1 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
Connectivity and Outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI | 3x mini-DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12.1 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.0.1 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Quadro P500 outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 5% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro P500 outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 5% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Quadro P500 outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 33% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
Quadro P500 outperforms GeForce GTX 550 Ti by 6% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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 | 38
−5.3%
| 40−45
+5.3%
|
| Full HD | 37
+85%
| 20
−85%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−100%
|
14
+100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−71.4%
|
12
+71.4%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| Hitman 3 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14
+55.6%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8
+14.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8
−12.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 10−11
−10%
|
10−12
+10%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
This is how GTX 550 Ti and Quadro P500 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P500 is 5.3% faster than GTX 550 Ti in 900p
- GTX 550 Ti is 85% faster than Quadro P500 in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 550 Ti is 12.5% faster than the Quadro P500.
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro P500 is 100% faster than the GTX 550 Ti.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 550 Ti is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Quadro P500 is ahead in 23 tests (38%)
- there's a draw in 36 tests (60%)
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 4.00 | 4.22 |
| Recency | 15 March 2011 | 14 November 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 18 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 550 Ti and Quadro P500.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 550 Ti is a desktop card while Quadro P500 is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with Similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
