Radeon Vega 7 vs Quadro M5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M5500 with Radeon Vega 7, including specs and performance data.
M5500 outperforms Vega 7 by a whopping 182% 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 | 321 | 601 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 14 |
| Power efficiency | 9.69 | 11.43 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 8 April 2016 (9 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (4 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 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 1140 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1165 MHz | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 149.1 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.772 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 128 | 28 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | no data |
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 | IGP |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1753 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 211 GB/s | no data |
| 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_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 60−65
+161%
| 23
−161%
|
| 1440p | 75−80
+168%
| 28
−168%
|
| 4K | 50−55
+178%
| 18
−178%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+224%
|
30−35
−224%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+128%
|
18
−128%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+186%
|
28
−186%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+224%
|
30−35
−224%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+193%
|
14
−193%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+235%
|
23
−235%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+215%
|
20
−215%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+61.9%
|
63
−61.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+111%
|
37
−111%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+154%
|
24
−154%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+192%
|
24−27
−192%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+95.9%
|
70−75
−95.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+248%
|
23
−248%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+224%
|
30−35
−224%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+300%
|
58
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+310%
|
10
−310%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+211%
|
35−40
−211%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+328%
|
18
−328%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+250%
|
18
−250%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+278%
|
27
−278%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+123%
|
35
−123%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65
+190%
|
21
−190%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75
+324%
|
17
−324%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+215%
|
13
−215%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+217%
|
23
−217%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+200%
|
18
−200%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+98.6%
|
73
−98.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+281%
|
21
−281%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+356%
|
9
−356%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+211%
|
35−40
−211%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 75−80
+185%
|
27−30
−185%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65
+250%
|
18
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+189%
|
27
−189%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+192%
|
24−27
−192%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+315%
|
13
−315%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+480%
|
25
−480%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+629%
|
14
−629%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+200%
|
12−14
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+169%
|
50−55
−169%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+386%
|
7−8
−386%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+328%
|
40−45
−328%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+275%
|
48
−275%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+323%
|
12−14
−323%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+223%
|
12−14
−223%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45
+207%
|
14−16
−207%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+200%
|
16−18
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+222%
|
9−10
−222%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+221%
|
14−16
−221%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+94.4%
|
18−20
−94.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+460%
|
5−6
−460%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+340%
|
25
−340%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+383%
|
6−7
−383%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+214%
|
21−24
−214%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+267%
|
6−7
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+209%
|
10−12
−209%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
This is how Quadro M5500 and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Quadro M5500 is 161% faster in 1080p
- Quadro M5500 is 168% faster in 1440p
- Quadro M5500 is 178% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro M5500 is 700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro M5500 surpassed Vega 7 in all 59 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.84 | 6.67 |
| Recency | 8 April 2016 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 45 Watt |
Quadro M5500 has a 182.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Vega 7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 233.3% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M5500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Vega 7 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M5500 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon Vega 7 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.
