Quadro P3200 vs Quadro M5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5500 and Quadro P3200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
P3200 outperforms M5500 by a small 8% 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 | 315 | 298 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 9.61 | 20.83 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (9 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (7 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 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 1140 MHz | 1328 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1165 MHz | 1543 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 149.1 | 172.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.772 TFLOPS | 5.53 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 128 | 112 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 672 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1536 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 | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1753 MHz | 1753 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 211 GB/s | 168.3 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 | No outputs |
| 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.
| Optimus | - | + |
| 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 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
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.
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 | 75−80
−12%
| 84
+12%
|
| 4K | 24−27
−16.7%
| 28
+16.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−8.2%
|
110−120
+8.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−10.8%
|
40−45
+10.8%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−6.3%
|
85−90
+6.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−8.2%
|
110−120
+8.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
−25.4%
|
79
+25.4%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−5.9%
|
100−110
+5.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−21.8%
|
95
+21.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
−8.2%
|
65−70
+8.2%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−10.8%
|
40−45
+10.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−9.6%
|
80−85
+9.6%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−5.6%
|
150−160
+5.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−6.3%
|
85−90
+6.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
−8.2%
|
110−120
+8.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
−3.9%
|
240−250
+3.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−9.2%
|
119
+9.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
−17.5%
|
74
+17.5%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
−5.9%
|
100−110
+5.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
−12.8%
|
88
+12.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
−8.2%
|
65−70
+8.2%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
−6.9%
|
75−80
+6.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−10.8%
|
40−45
+10.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−9.6%
|
80−85
+9.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
−55.6%
|
84
+55.6%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−5.6%
|
150−160
+5.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−6.3%
|
85−90
+6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
−9.8%
|
45−50
+9.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
−2.8%
|
112
+2.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
−11.1%
|
70
+11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+8.3%
|
72
−8.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
−10.8%
|
40−45
+10.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
−9.6%
|
80−85
+9.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+17.4%
|
46
−17.4%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
−5.6%
|
150−160
+5.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
−5.9%
|
100−110
+5.9%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
−10%
|
40−45
+10%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
−7.1%
|
150−160
+7.1%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
−12.1%
|
35−40
+12.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
−1.2%
|
170−180
+1.2%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
−5%
|
180−190
+5%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
−7.3%
|
55−60
+7.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
−11.1%
|
20−22
+11.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
−9.3%
|
45−50
+9.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
−8.3%
|
50−55
+8.3%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
−9.5%
|
21−24
+9.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
−10%
|
30−35
+10%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
−8.9%
|
45−50
+8.9%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
−8.6%
|
35−40
+8.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
−9.1%
|
120−130
+9.1%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−10.3%
|
30−35
+10.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
−7.6%
|
70−75
+7.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
−9.1%
|
24−27
+9.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
−5.9%
|
35−40
+5.9%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
−8.3%
|
12−14
+8.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
This is how Quadro M5500 and Quadro P3200 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P3200 is 12% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P3200 is 17% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro M5500 is 17% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P3200 is 56% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro M5500 performs better in 2 tests (3%)
- Quadro P3200 performs better in 62 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 17.90 | 19.40 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 21 February 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 75 Watt |
Quadro M5500 has a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro P3200, on the other hand, has a 8.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, 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 P3200.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
