Radeon Pro 5500M vs Quadro K2000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K2000M and Radeon Pro 5500M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

K2000M
2012
2 GB DDR3, 55 Watt
2.48

Pro 5500M outperforms K2000M by a whopping 572% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking864348
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.40no data
Power efficiency3.2614.16
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameGK107Navi 14
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date1 June 2012 (13 years ago)13 November 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$265.27 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores3841536
Core clock speed745 MHz1000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1450 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt85 Watt
Texture fill rate23.84139.2
Floating-point processing power0.5722 TFLOPS4.454 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs3296

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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s192.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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.

K2000M 2.48
Pro 5500M 16.66
+572%

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.

K2000M 1001
Pro 5500M 6723
+572%

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.

K2000M 1798
Pro 5500M 14725
+719%

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.

K2000M 1046
Pro 5500M 10399
+894%

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.

K2000M 8766
Pro 5500M 65776
+650%

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 HD25
−128%
57
+128%
1440p8−9
−638%
59
+638%
4K4−5
−700%
32
+700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p10.61no data
1440p33.16no data
4K66.32no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 5−6
−1760%
90−95
+1760%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−580%
30−35
+580%
Dead Island 2 7−8
−814%
60−65
+814%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
−850%
76
+850%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
−1760%
90−95
+1760%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−580%
30−35
+580%
Dead Island 2 7−8
−814%
60−65
+814%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−800%
50−55
+800%
Fortnite 12−14
−650%
90−95
+650%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−467%
65−70
+467%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
−520%
31
+520%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−408%
60−65
+408%
Valorant 40−45
−202%
130−140
+202%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
−675%
62
+675%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
−1760%
90−95
+1760%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 63
−230%
208
+230%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−580%
30−35
+580%
Dead Island 2 7−8
−814%
60−65
+814%
Dota 2 24−27
−344%
111
+344%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−800%
50−55
+800%
Fortnite 12−14
−650%
90−95
+650%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−467%
65−70
+467%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
−920%
50−55
+920%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7
−1050%
69
+1050%
Metro Exodus 4−5
−825%
37
+825%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−408%
60−65
+408%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−656%
68
+656%
Valorant 40−45
−202%
130−140
+202%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
−638%
59
+638%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−580%
30−35
+580%
Dead Island 2 7−8
−814%
60−65
+814%
Dota 2 24−27
−328%
107
+328%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−817%
55
+817%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
−467%
65−70
+467%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−408%
60−65
+408%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−333%
39
+333%
Valorant 40−45
+53.6%
28
−53.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
−650%
90−95
+650%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−1000%
30−35
+1000%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−594%
118
+594%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3
−1650%
35
+1650%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−2100%
22
+2100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
−529%
107
+529%
Valorant 21−24
−641%
160−170
+641%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−650%
14−16
+650%
Dead Island 2 6−7
−367%
27−30
+367%
Far Cry 5 3−4
−1233%
40
+1233%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−583%
40−45
+583%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−733%
24−27
+733%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 4−5
−825%
35−40
+825%

4K
High Preset

Dead Island 2 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
−56.3%
25
+56.3%
Valorant 12−14
−658%
90−95
+658%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 6−7
Dead Island 2 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Dota 2 6−7
−800%
54
+800%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1900%
20
+1900%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−2800%
27−30
+2800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 47
+0%
47
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 71
+0%
71
+0%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

This is how K2000M and Pro 5500M compete in popular games:

  • Pro 5500M is 128% faster in 1080p
  • Pro 5500M is 638% faster in 1440p
  • Pro 5500M is 700% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K2000M is 54% faster.
  • in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 5500M is 2800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K2000M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • Pro 5500M is ahead in 58 tests (88%)
  • there's a draw in 7 tests (11%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.48 16.66
Recency 1 June 2012 13 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 85 Watt

K2000M has 54.5% lower power consumption.

Pro 5500M, on the other hand, has a 571.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro 5500M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K2000M in performance tests.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro K2000M
Quadro K2000M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
Radeon Pro 5500M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 35 votes

Rate Quadro K2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 291 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 5500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K2000M or Radeon Pro 5500M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.