GeForce GTX 970 vs Quadro M5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5500 with GeForce GTX 970, including specs and performance data.
GTX 970 outperforms M5500 by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 270 | 218 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 78 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 13.85 |
| Power efficiency | 9.47 | 11.68 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GM204 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (8 years ago) | 19 September 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $329 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 1664 |
| Core clock speed | 1140 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1165 MHz | 1178 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 5,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 148 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 98 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 149.1 | 122.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.772 TFLOPS | 3.92 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 56 |
| TMUs | 128 | 104 |
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 | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | no data | 500 Watt |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 2x 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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1753 MHz | 7.0 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 211 GB/s | 224 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 |
| 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.
| GameStream | - | + |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | - | + |
| GPU Boost | no data | 2.0 |
| GameWorks | - | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| 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. 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.
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 | 65−70
−23.1%
| 80
+23.1%
|
| 1440p | 40−45
−30%
| 52
+30%
|
| 4K | 30−35
−33.3%
| 40
+33.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.11 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.33 |
| 4K | no data | 8.23 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−27%
|
45−50
+27%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−24.4%
|
50−55
+24.4%
|
| Elden Ring | 65−70
−24.2%
|
80−85
+24.2%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
−18.5%
|
75−80
+18.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−27%
|
45−50
+27%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−24.4%
|
50−55
+24.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
−26.4%
|
110−120
+26.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
−20%
|
65−70
+20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
−17%
|
55−60
+17%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−21.7%
|
100−110
+21.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
−18.5%
|
75−80
+18.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−27%
|
45−50
+27%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−24.4%
|
50−55
+24.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+53.2%
|
47
−53.2%
|
| Elden Ring | 65−70
−24.2%
|
80−85
+24.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−13.2%
|
75−80
+13.2%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−15.7%
|
120−130
+15.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
−26.4%
|
110−120
+26.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+1.4%
|
71
−1.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55−60
+244%
|
16
−244%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+117%
|
63
−117%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 45−50
−17%
|
55−60
+17%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
−7.7%
|
70
+7.7%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−21.7%
|
100−110
+21.7%
|
| World of Tanks | 230−240
−9.8%
|
250−260
+9.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+8.3%
|
60
−8.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
−27%
|
45−50
+27%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−24.4%
|
50−55
+24.4%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
−19.4%
|
85−90
+19.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
−13.2%
|
75−80
+13.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 85−90
−26.4%
|
110−120
+26.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+191%
|
47
−191%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−21.7%
|
100−110
+21.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 30−35
−27.3%
|
40−45
+27.3%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−35
−29.4%
|
40−45
+29.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−27.3%
|
40−45
+27.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−1.7%
|
170−180
+1.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 18−20
−21.1%
|
21−24
+21.1%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
−19.4%
|
160−170
+19.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
−19%
|
50−55
+19%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−23.5%
|
21−24
+23.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
−30.4%
|
70−75
+30.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
−26.4%
|
65−70
+26.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
−21.3%
|
55−60
+21.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
−32.1%
|
35−40
+32.1%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−28.3%
|
65−70
+28.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−35.3%
|
21−24
+35.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−31.4%
|
46
+31.4%
|
| Elden Ring | 14−16
−33.3%
|
20−22
+33.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−31.4%
|
46
+31.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+15.4%
|
13
−15.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+1.6%
|
61
−1.6%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
−31.4%
|
46
+31.4%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−23.8%
|
24−27
+23.8%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−35.3%
|
21−24
+35.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−25.7%
|
40−45
+25.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
−22.2%
|
30−35
+22.2%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−22.6%
|
35−40
+22.6%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−32%
|
30−35
+32%
|
This is how Quadro M5500 and GTX 970 compete in popular games:
- GTX 970 is 23% faster in 1080p
- GTX 970 is 30% faster in 1440p
- GTX 970 is 33% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro M5500 is 244% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 970 is 35% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro M5500 is ahead in 8 tests (13%)
- GTX 970 is ahead in 54 tests (86%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.58 | 25.06 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 19 September 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 148 Watt |
Quadro M5500 has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GTX 970, on the other hand, has a 21.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 1.4% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 970 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M5500 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5500 is a mobile workstation card while GeForce GTX 970 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
