Radeon RX 6550M vs Quadro M2000

Place in the ranking	442	216
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	3.63	no data
Power efficiency	9.45	21.35
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GM206	Navi 24
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	8 April 2016 (8 years ago)	4 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$437.75	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	768	1024
Core clock speed	796 MHz	2000 MHz
Boost clock speed	1163 MHz	2840 MHz
Number of transistors	2,940 million	5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	80 Watt
Texture fill rate	55.82	181.8
Floating-point processing power	1.786 TFLOPS	5.816 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	48	64
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	16

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 x4
Length	201 mm	no data
Width	1" (2.5 cm)	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	128 Bit	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1653 MHz	2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	Up to 106 GB/s	144.0 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

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 Connectors	4x DisplayPort	Portable Device Dependent
Number of simultaneous displays	4	no data

Supported technologies

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

3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Desktop Management	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	6.4	6.7
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.2
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
CUDA	5.2	-

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro M2000 10.34

RX 6550M 24.93
+141%

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.

Quadro M2000 3985

RX 6550M 9605
+141%

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	30−35 −147%	74 +147%
1440p	9−10 −156%	23 +156%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	14.59	no data
1440p	48.64	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

40−45

+0%

40−45

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Battlefield 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Hitman 3	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Metro Exodus	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Battlefield 5	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Hitman 3	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Metro Exodus	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	101 +0%	101 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Hitman 3	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	88 +0%	88 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	49 +0%	49 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

60−65

+0%

60−65

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Hitman 3	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

+0%

40−45

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Hitman 3	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
Metro Exodus	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

+0%

21−24

+0%

This is how Quadro M2000 and RX 6550M compete in popular games:

RX 6550M is 147% faster in 1080p
RX 6550M is 156% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.34	24.93
Recency	8 April 2016	4 January 2023
Chip lithography	28 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	80 Watt

Quadro M2000 has 6.7% lower power consumption.

RX 6550M, on the other hand, has a 141.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 366.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6550M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000 is a workstation card while Radeon RX 6550M is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.