Radeon RX Vega M GH vs Quadro M5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5500 with Radeon RX Vega M GH, including specs and performance data.
M5500 outperforms M GH by a significant 21% 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 | 323 | 376 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 9.72 | 12.07 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | Polaris 22 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (10 years ago) | 1 February 2018 (8 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 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 1140 MHz | 1063 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1165 MHz | 1190 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 149.1 | 114.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.772 TFLOPS | 3.656 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 128 | 96 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 384 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1024 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 | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| 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 | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 1024 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1753 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 211 GB/s | 204.8 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.
| 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_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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 | 70−75
+18.6%
| 59
−18.6%
|
| 1440p | 45−50
+18.4%
| 38
−18.4%
|
| 4K | 30−35
+7.1%
| 28
−7.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+21.1%
|
90−95
−21.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+5.1%
|
39
−5.1%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 40−45
+26.5%
|
30−35
−26.5%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
−1.3%
|
81
+1.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+21.1%
|
90−95
−21.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+36.7%
|
30
−36.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+21.2%
|
50−55
−21.2%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+15.9%
|
85−90
−15.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+18.2%
|
65−70
−18.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+29.8%
|
47
−29.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+25.4%
|
55−60
−25.4%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+13.3%
|
120−130
−13.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+21.2%
|
66
−21.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+21.1%
|
90−95
−21.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+12.1%
|
200−210
−12.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+78.3%
|
23
−78.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+0.9%
|
108
−0.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+23.5%
|
51
−23.5%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+15.9%
|
85−90
−15.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+18.2%
|
65−70
−18.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+74.3%
|
35
−74.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+20%
|
60
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+28.1%
|
32
−28.1%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+25.4%
|
55−60
−25.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
−11.1%
|
60
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+13.3%
|
120−130
−13.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+33.3%
|
60
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+78.3%
|
23
−78.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+14.7%
|
95
−14.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+34%
|
47
−34%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+18.2%
|
65−70
−18.2%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+25.4%
|
55−60
−25.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+58.8%
|
34
−58.8%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+13.3%
|
120−130
−13.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+15.9%
|
85−90
−15.9%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+25.8%
|
30−35
−25.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+19.7%
|
110−120
−19.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+30.8%
|
24−27
−30.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+25%
|
20−22
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+10.3%
|
150−160
−10.3%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+13.2%
|
150−160
−13.2%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+27.9%
|
43
−27.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+350%
|
4
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+22.9%
|
35−40
−22.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+23.1%
|
35−40
−23.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+20.8%
|
24−27
−20.8%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+25%
|
35−40
−25%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+20.7%
|
27−30
−20.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+45.5%
|
11
−45.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+27.3%
|
21−24
−27.3%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+23.6%
|
85−90
−23.6%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+38.1%
|
21
−38.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+15.8%
|
55−60
−15.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+29.4%
|
16−18
−29.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+21.4%
|
27−30
−21.4%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
+25%
|
16−18
−25%
|
This is how Quadro M5500 and RX Vega M GH compete in popular games:
- Quadro M5500 is 19% faster in 1080p
- Quadro M5500 is 18% faster in 1440p
- Quadro M5500 is 7% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro M5500 is 350% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega M GH is 11% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro M5500 performs better in 58 tests (97%)
- RX Vega M GH performs better in 2 tests (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.93 | 15.67 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 1 February 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 100 Watt |
Quadro M5500 has a 21% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX Vega M GH, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M5500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon RX Vega M GH in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5500 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX Vega M GH is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
