GeForce GTS 250M vs Quadro M5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5500 with GeForce GTS 250M, including specs and performance data.
M5500 outperforms GTS 250M by a whopping 1333% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 278 | 1006 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 9.46 | 3.53 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GT215 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (15 years ago) |
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 | 2048 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 1140 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1165 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 727 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 28 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 149.1 | 16.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.772 TFLOPS | 0.24 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 360 |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 128 | 32 |
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 | large | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | + | + |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1753 MHz | Up to 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 211 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs | HDMIVGALVDSSingle Link DVIDisplayPortDual Link DVI |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| 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.
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 | 400−450
+1329%
| 28
−1329%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+1143%
|
7−8
−1143%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
+571%
|
7−8
−571%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+1560%
|
5−6
−1560%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+7200%
|
1−2
−7200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+509%
|
10−12
−509%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+1700%
|
6−7
−1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+1143%
|
7−8
−1143%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+7100%
|
1−2
−7100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+813%
|
14−16
−813%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
+571%
|
7−8
−571%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+829%
|
7−8
−829%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+1560%
|
5−6
−1560%
|
| World of Tanks | 230−240
+683%
|
30−33
−683%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+429%
|
7−8
−429%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+7200%
|
1−2
−7200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+509%
|
10−12
−509%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
+1143%
|
7−8
−1143%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+813%
|
14−16
−813%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+1560%
|
5−6
−1560%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2063%
|
8−9
−2063%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 130−140
+1638%
|
8−9
−1638%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+1020%
|
5−6
−1020%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+1667%
|
3−4
−1667%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+1467%
|
3−4
−1467%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+657%
|
7−8
−657%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+119%
|
16−18
−119%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+133%
|
14−16
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+133%
|
14−16
−133%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+119%
|
16−18
−119%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
This is how Quadro M5500 and GTS 250M compete in popular games:
- Quadro M5500 is 1329% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro M5500 is 7200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro M5500 surpassed GTS 250M in all 42 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.77 | 1.38 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 15 June 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 28 Watt |
Quadro M5500 has a 1332.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GTS 250M, on the other hand, has 435.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M5500 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 250M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5500 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTS 250M 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.
