GeForce GTX 650 vs Quadro M5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5500 with GeForce GTX 650, including specs and performance data.
M5500 outperforms GTX 650 by a whopping 351% 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 | 321 | 719 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 81 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.19 |
| Power efficiency | 9.69 | 4.96 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (9 years ago) | 6 September 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $109 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 2048 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 1140 MHz | 1058 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1165 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 64 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 149.1 | 33.86 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.772 TFLOPS | 0.8125 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 16 |
| TMUs | 128 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 256 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 147 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.38" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128-bit GDDR5 |
| Memory clock speed | 1753 MHz | 5.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 211 GB/s | 80.0 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 | No outputs | One Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One Mini HDMI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | 4 displays |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Display Port | 1.2 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
| 3D Gaming | - | + |
| 3D Vision | - | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+354%
|
24−27
−354%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+400%
|
16−18
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+354%
|
24−27
−354%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+381%
|
16−18
−381%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+425%
|
12−14
−425%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+386%
|
21−24
−386%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+388%
|
16−18
−388%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+408%
|
12−14
−408%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+356%
|
16−18
−356%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+383%
|
30−33
−383%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+400%
|
16−18
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+354%
|
24−27
−354%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+364%
|
50−55
−364%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+354%
|
24−27
−354%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+381%
|
16−18
−381%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+425%
|
12−14
−425%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+386%
|
21−24
−386%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+388%
|
16−18
−388%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+408%
|
12−14
−408%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+414%
|
14−16
−414%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+356%
|
16−18
−356%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+440%
|
10−11
−440%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+383%
|
30−33
−383%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+400%
|
16−18
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+354%
|
24−27
−354%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+381%
|
16−18
−381%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+425%
|
12−14
−425%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+388%
|
16−18
−388%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+356%
|
16−18
−356%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+440%
|
10−11
−440%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+383%
|
30−33
−383%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+386%
|
21−24
−386%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+388%
|
8−9
−388%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+367%
|
30−33
−367%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+400%
|
5−6
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+389%
|
35−40
−389%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+414%
|
35−40
−414%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+358%
|
12−14
−358%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+367%
|
9−10
−367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+378%
|
9−10
−378%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+380%
|
10−11
−380%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+383%
|
6−7
−383%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+400%
|
9−10
−400%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+367%
|
6−7
−367%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+358%
|
24−27
−358%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+383%
|
6−7
−383%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+371%
|
14−16
−371%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+450%
|
4−5
−450%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.68 | 4.14 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 6 September 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 64 Watt |
Quadro M5500 has a 351.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 650, on the other hand, has 134.4% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M5500 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 650 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5500 is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 650 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
