Radeon Pro 5500M vs Quadro K5200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K5200 with Radeon Pro 5500M, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5500M outperforms K5200 by a small 9% 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 | 376 | 350 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.94 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.47 | 14.40 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (11 years ago) | 13 November 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,699.74 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 2304 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 667 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 771 MHz | 1450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 148.0 | 139.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.553 TFLOPS | 4.454 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 32 |
| TMUs | 192 | 96 |
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 size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 192.0 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 Connectors | 2x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | - |
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.
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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 50−55
−14%
| 57
+14%
|
| 1440p | 50−55
−18%
| 59
+18%
|
| 4K | 27−30
−18.5%
| 32
+18.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 33.99 | no data |
| 1440p | 33.99 | no data |
| 4K | 62.95 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 208
+0%
|
208
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 111
+0%
|
111
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| God of War | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Valorant | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| God of War | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
This is how Quadro K5200 and Pro 5500M compete in popular games:
- Pro 5500M is 14% faster in 1080p
- Pro 5500M is 18% faster in 1440p
- Pro 5500M is 19% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.70 | 16.07 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 13 November 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 85 Watt |
Pro 5500M has a 9.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 76.5% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro K5200 and Radeon Pro 5500M.
Be aware that Quadro K5200 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon Pro 5500M 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.
