Quadro P2000 vs Quadro M5500

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M5500 with Quadro P2000, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M5500
2016
8 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
20.55
+8.9%

M5500 outperforms P2000 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking268295
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data9.52
Power efficiency9.4017.26
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGM204GP106
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date8 April 2016 (8 years ago)6 February 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$585

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 cores20481024
Core clock speed1140 MHz1076 MHz
Boost clock speed1165 MHz1480 MHz
Number of transistors5,200 million4,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate149.194.72
Floating-point processing power4.772 TFLOPS3.031 TFLOPS
ROPs6440
TMUs12864

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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data201 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB5 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit160 Bit
Memory clock speed1753 MHz1752 MHz
Memory bandwidth211 GB/s140.2 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x DisplayPort
Display Port1.2no 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+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.

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan++
CUDA+6.1

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 M5500 20.55
+8.9%
Quadro P2000 18.87

  • Passmark

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 M5500 7915
+8.9%
Quadro P2000 7268

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 HD60−65
+7.1%
56
−7.1%
1440p21−24
−4.8%
22
+4.8%
4K16−18
+0%
16
+0%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data10.45
1440pno data26.59
4Kno data36.56

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
+9.5%
40−45
−9.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+9.7%
30−35
−9.7%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+8.1%
60−65
−8.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+10.5%
35−40
−10.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+14.3%
42
−14.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+7.8%
50−55
−7.8%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+6.8%
110−120
−6.8%
Hitman 3 40−45
+8.1%
35−40
−8.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100
+6.5%
90−95
−6.5%
Metro Exodus 70−75
+9.2%
65−70
−9.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+7.8%
50−55
−7.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
−13.2%
77
+13.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95
+5.7%
85−90
−5.7%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
+9.5%
40−45
−9.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+9.7%
30−35
−9.7%
Battlefield 5 65−70
+8.1%
60−65
−8.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+10.5%
35−40
−10.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+45.5%
33
−45.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60
+7.8%
50−55
−7.8%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+6.8%
110−120
−6.8%
Hitman 3 40−45
+8.1%
35−40
−8.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100
+6.5%
90−95
−6.5%
Metro Exodus 70−75
+9.2%
65−70
−9.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+7.8%
50−55
−7.8%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+9.7%
60−65
−9.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+7%
40−45
−7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95
+5.7%
85−90
−5.7%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 45−50
+9.5%
40−45
−9.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+9.7%
30−35
−9.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 40−45
+10.5%
35−40
−10.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+84.6%
26
−84.6%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+6.8%
110−120
−6.8%
Hitman 3 40−45
+8.1%
35−40
−8.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 95−100
+6.5%
90−95
−6.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 65−70
+9.7%
60−65
−9.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+84%
25
−84%
Watch Dogs: Legion 90−95
+5.7%
85−90
−5.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+7.8%
50−55
−7.8%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+8.3%
35−40
−8.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+6.9%
27−30
−6.9%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
+10.5%
18−20
−10.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+11.8%
16−18
−11.8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+71.4%
14
−71.4%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+10.6%
100−110
−10.6%
Hitman 3 24−27
+9.1%
21−24
−9.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+10.5%
35−40
−10.5%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+8.6%
35−40
−8.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+10.5%
35−40
−10.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 120−130
+7.1%
110−120
−7.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+9.7%
30−35
−9.7%
Battlefield 5 20−22
+11.1%
18−20
−11.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Hitman 3 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100−110
+9.3%
95−100
−9.3%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+10%
20−22
−10%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
+61.5%
13
−61.5%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+57.1%
7
−57.1%
Forza Horizon 4 27−30
+7.7%
24−27
−7.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+9.5%
21−24
−9.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%

This is how Quadro M5500 and Quadro P2000 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro M5500 is 7% faster in 1080p
  • Quadro P2000 is 5% faster in 1440p
  • A tie in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro M5500 is 85% faster.
  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro P2000 is 13% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro M5500 is ahead in 70 tests (97%)
  • Quadro P2000 is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (1%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.55 18.87
Recency 8 April 2016 6 February 2017
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 5 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 75 Watt

Quadro M5500 has a 8.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 60% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro P2000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months, a 75% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro M5500 and Quadro P2000.

Be aware that Quadro M5500 is a mobile workstation card while Quadro P2000 is a workstation one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro M5500
Quadro M5500
NVIDIA Quadro P2000
Quadro P2000

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


1.6
36 votes

Rate Quadro M5500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5
638 votes

Rate Quadro P2000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.