Quadro M2000 vs Quadro M5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5500 with Quadro M2000, including specs and performance data.
M5500 outperforms M2000 by an impressive 97% 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 | 307 | 477 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.54 |
| Power efficiency | 9.59 | 9.73 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GM206 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (9 years ago) | 8 April 2016 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $437.75 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1140 MHz | 796 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1165 MHz | 1163 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 2,940 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 149.1 | 55.82 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.772 TFLOPS | 1.786 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 128 | 48 |
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 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 201 mm |
| Width | no data | 1" (2.5 cm) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| 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 | 128 Bit |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1753 MHz | 1653 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 211 GB/s | Up to 106 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 4x DisplayPort |
| Number of simultaneous displays | no data | 4 |
| 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.
| 3D Vision Pro | + | + |
| Mosaic | + | + |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| nView Desktop 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 | 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.1.126 |
| 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.
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 Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+98.2%
|
55−60
−98.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| God of War | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+100%
|
40−45
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+98.2%
|
55−60
−98.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+110%
|
30−33
−110%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+104%
|
50−55
−104%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+123%
|
35−40
−123%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| God of War | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+109%
|
35−40
−109%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+106%
|
70−75
−106%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+100%
|
40−45
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+98.2%
|
55−60
−98.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+111%
|
110−120
−111%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+98.2%
|
55−60
−98.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+110%
|
30−33
−110%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+104%
|
50−55
−104%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+123%
|
35−40
−123%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+103%
|
30−33
−103%
|
| God of War | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+103%
|
35−40
−103%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+109%
|
35−40
−109%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+100%
|
27−30
−100%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+106%
|
70−75
−106%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+100%
|
40−45
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+128%
|
18−20
−128%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+98.2%
|
55−60
−98.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+110%
|
30−33
−110%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+123%
|
35−40
−123%
|
| God of War | 40−45
+122%
|
18−20
−122%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+109%
|
35−40
−109%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+100%
|
27−30
−100%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+106%
|
70−75
−106%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 100−110
+104%
|
50−55
−104%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+117%
|
18−20
−117%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+100%
|
70−75
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+106%
|
16−18
−106%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+108%
|
12−14
−108%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+101%
|
85−90
−101%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+100%
|
90−95
−100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+104%
|
27−30
−104%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+100%
|
9−10
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+105%
|
21−24
−105%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+100%
|
24−27
−100%
|
| God of War | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
+110%
|
21−24
−110%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+119%
|
16−18
−119%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+100%
|
14−16
−100%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+100%
|
55−60
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+107%
|
14−16
−107%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+120%
|
30−33
−120%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+113%
|
16−18
−113%
|
| God of War | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 20−22
+100%
|
10−11
−100%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.89 | 9.58 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
Quadro M5500 has a 97.2% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro M2000, on the other hand, has 100% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M5500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5500 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Quadro M2000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
