Radeon Pro 5500M vs Quadro K5000M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K5000M and Radeon Pro 5500M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

K5000M
2012
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
6.69

Pro 5500M outperforms K5000M by a whopping 140% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking584348
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.00no data
Power efficiency5.0914.37
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameGK104Navi 14
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date7 August 2012 (12 years ago)13 November 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329.99 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 cores13441536
Core clock speed601 MHz1000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1450 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt85 Watt
Texture fill rate67.31139.2
Floating-point processing power1.615 TFLOPS4.454 TFLOPS
ROPs3232
TMUs11296

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-B (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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB8 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed750 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth96 GB/s192.0 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 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.

K5000M 6.69
Pro 5500M 16.06
+140%

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.

K5000M 2804
Pro 5500M 6732
+140%

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.

K5000M 4893
Pro 5500M 14725
+201%

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.

K5000M 2798
Pro 5500M 10399
+272%

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.

K5000M 23061
Pro 5500M 65776
+185%

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 HD59
+3.5%
57
−3.5%
1440p24−27
−146%
59
+146%
4K12−14
−167%
32
+167%

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.59no data
1440p13.75no data
4K27.50no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
−174%
90−95
+174%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−143%
30−35
+143%
Sons of the Forest 10−12
−200%
30−35
+200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
−162%
76
+162%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
−174%
90−95
+174%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−143%
30−35
+143%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−152%
50−55
+152%
Fortnite 40−45
−120%
90−95
+120%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−119%
65−70
+119%
Forza Horizon 5 20−22
−55%
31
+55%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−144%
60−65
+144%
Sons of the Forest 10−12
−200%
30−35
+200%
Valorant 70−75
−75.7%
130−140
+75.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
−114%
62
+114%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
−174%
90−95
+174%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 110−120
−89.1%
208
+89.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−143%
30−35
+143%
Dota 2 50−55
−106%
111
+106%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−152%
50−55
+152%
Fortnite 40−45
−120%
90−95
+120%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−119%
65−70
+119%
Forza Horizon 5 20−22
−155%
50−55
+155%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
−188%
69
+188%
Metro Exodus 12−14
−185%
37
+185%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−144%
60−65
+144%
Sons of the Forest 10−12
−200%
30−35
+200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
−278%
68
+278%
Valorant 70−75
−75.7%
130−140
+75.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
−103%
59
+103%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
−143%
30−35
+143%
Dota 2 50−55
−98.1%
107
+98.1%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−162%
55
+162%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−119%
65−70
+119%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
−144%
60−65
+144%
Sons of the Forest 10−12
−200%
30−35
+200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
−117%
39
+117%
Valorant 70−75
+164%
28
−164%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45
−120%
90−95
+120%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
−167%
30−35
+167%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
−127%
118
+127%
Grand Theft Auto V 8−9
−338%
35
+338%
Metro Exodus 7−8
−214%
22
+214%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
−168%
107
+168%
Valorant 75−80
−113%
160−170
+113%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
−262%
47
+262%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−200%
14−16
+200%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−208%
40
+208%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−150%
40−45
+150%
Sons of the Forest 6−7
−233%
20−22
+233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−178%
24−27
+178%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 14−16
−164%
35−40
+164%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
−38.9%
25
+38.9%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−550%
12−14
+550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−360%
21−24
+360%
Valorant 35−40
−160%
90−95
+160%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 6−7
−133%
14
+133%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%
Dota 2 24−27
−125%
54
+125%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−233%
20
+233%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
−155%
27−30
+155%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%
Sons of the Forest 4−5
−200%
12−14
+200%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 7−8
−129%
16−18
+129%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 71
+0%
71
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

This is how K5000M and Pro 5500M compete in popular games:

  • K5000M is 4% faster in 1080p
  • Pro 5500M is 146% faster in 1440p
  • Pro 5500M is 167% faster in 4K

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

  • in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K5000M is 164% faster.
  • in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5500M is 550% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K5000M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
  • Pro 5500M is ahead in 62 tests (94%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (5%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.69 16.06
Recency 7 August 2012 13 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 85 Watt

Pro 5500M has a 140.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 17.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Pro 5500M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K5000M 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 K5000M
Quadro K5000M
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.


4.3 87 votes

Rate Quadro K5000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 299 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 K5000M or Radeon Pro 5500M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.