Radeon Pro W5500M vs Quadro K2200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K2200 with Radeon Pro W5500M, including specs and performance data.
K2200 outperforms Pro W5500M by a minimal 3% 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 | 539 | 549 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.38 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.67 | 7.50 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM107 | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) | 10 February 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $395.75 | 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 | 640 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 1046 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | 1450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 68 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 44.96 | 127.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.439 TFLOPS | 4.083 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 40 | 88 |
| L1 Cache | 320 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 202 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 192.0 GB/s |
| 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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
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 | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | - |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.56 | 8.30 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 10 February 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 68 Watt | 85 Watt |
Quadro K2200 has a 3.1% higher aggregate performance score, and 25% lower power consumption.
Pro W5500M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K2200 and Radeon Pro W5500M.
Be aware that Quadro K2200 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon Pro W5500M 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.
