Radeon RX 550 Mobile vs Quadro K6000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K6000 with Radeon RX 550 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
K6000 outperforms 550 Mobile by a whopping 198% 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 | 320 | 621 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.52 | 4.47 |
| Power efficiency | 6.56 | 9.92 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK110B | Lexa |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) | 2 July 2017 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $5,265 | $79.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RX 550 Mobile has 760% better value for money than Quadro K6000.
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 | 2880 | 640 |
| Core clock speed | 797 MHz | 1100 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 902 MHz | 1287 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,080 million | 2,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 216.5 | 51.48 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.196 TFLOPS | 1.647 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 240 | 40 |
| L1 Cache | 240 KB | 160 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1536 KB | 512 KB |
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 | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.4 GB/s | 96 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 3.5 | - |
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 | 40−45
+167%
| 15
−167%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 131.63
−2368%
| 5.33
+2368%
|
- RX 550 Mobile has 2368% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
This is how Quadro K6000 and RX 550 Mobile compete in popular games:
- Quadro K6000 is 167% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 58 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.17 | 6.44 |
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 2 July 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 12 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 50 Watt |
Quadro K6000 has a 197.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 550 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 350% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX 550 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K6000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 550 Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
