Radeon HD 8550M vs Quadro 2000
Aggregated performance score
Quadro 2000 outperforms Radeon HD 8550M by an impressive 73% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 798 | 953 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.38 | 0.06 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | GF106 | Sun |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 24 December 2010 (13 years ago) | 16 November 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | no data |
| Current price | $141 (0.2x MSRP) | $338 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro 2000 has 533% better value for money than HD 8550M.
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 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 700 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 690 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 62 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 20.00 | 17.00 |
| Floating-point performance | 480.0 gflops | 544.0 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Quadro 2000 and Radeon HD 8550M 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 | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 178 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2600 MHz | 1800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 41.6 GB/s | 14.4 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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | no data |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.45 | 1.42 |
| Recency | 24 December 2010 | 16 November 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
The Quadro 2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8550M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 2000 is a workstation card while Radeon HD 8550M is a notebook 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.
