Radeon Pro 5500M vs Quadro P2000 Max-Q

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro P2000 Max-Q and Radeon Pro 5500M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

P2000 Max-Q
2017
4 GB GDDR5
13.44

Pro 5500M outperforms P2000 Max-Q by a significant 28% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking385319
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data14.25
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameGP107GLNavi 14
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date5 July 2017 (7 years ago)13 November 2019 (5 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 cores7681536
Core clock speed1215 MHz1000 MHz
Boost clock speed1468 MHz1450 MHz
Number of transistorsno data6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data85 Watt
Texture fill rateno data139.2
Floating-point processing powerno data4.454 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data96

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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
Interfaceno dataPCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed6008 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data192.0 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 dataNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12_112 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.0
Vulkan-1.2.131

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.

P2000 Max-Q 13.44
Pro 5500M 17.25
+28.3%

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.

P2000 Max-Q 5290
Pro 5500M 6786
+28.3%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

P2000 Max-Q 8148
Pro 5500M 14725
+80.7%

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

P2000 Max-Q 6742
Pro 5500M 10399
+54.2%

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

P2000 Max-Q 28679
Pro 5500M 65776
+129%

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

P2000 Max-Q 326075
Pro 5500M 364184
+11.7%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

P2000 Max-Q 2049
Pro 5500M 3364
+64.2%

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 HD50
−18%
59
+18%
1440p45−50
−33.3%
60
+33.3%
4K20
−70%
34
+70%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
−30.3%
40−45
+30.3%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−30.4%
30−33
+30.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−29.6%
35−40
+29.6%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
−30.3%
40−45
+30.3%
Battlefield 5 55−60
−35.7%
76
+35.7%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−30.4%
30−33
+30.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−29.6%
35−40
+29.6%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−27.3%
55−60
+27.3%
Fortnite 75−80
−21.3%
90−95
+21.3%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−23.6%
65−70
+23.6%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
−17.1%
41
+17.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−29.8%
60−65
+29.8%
Valorant 110−120
−17.1%
130−140
+17.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
−30.3%
40−45
+30.3%
Battlefield 5 55−60
−10.7%
62
+10.7%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−30.4%
30−33
+30.4%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 180−190
−14.9%
208
+14.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−29.6%
35−40
+29.6%
Dota 2 85−90
−30.6%
111
+30.6%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−27.3%
55−60
+27.3%
Fortnite 75−80
−21.3%
90−95
+21.3%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−23.6%
65−70
+23.6%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
−31.4%
45−50
+31.4%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
−40.8%
69
+40.8%
Metro Exodus 27−30
−37%
37
+37%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−29.8%
60−65
+29.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 32
−113%
68
+113%
Valorant 110−120
−17.1%
130−140
+17.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
−5.4%
59
+5.4%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
−30.4%
30−33
+30.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
−29.6%
35−40
+29.6%
Dota 2 85−90
−25.9%
107
+25.9%
Far Cry 5 40−45
−25%
55
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−23.6%
65−70
+23.6%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
−31.4%
45−50
+31.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
−29.8%
60−65
+29.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 25
−56%
39
+56%
Valorant 110−120
+296%
28
−296%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
−21.3%
90−95
+21.3%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
−12.5%
18−20
+12.5%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 95−100
−21.6%
118
+21.6%
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
−75%
35
+75%
Metro Exodus 16−18
−37.5%
22
+37.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+1.9%
107
−1.9%
Valorant 130−140
−19.7%
160−170
+19.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
−34.3%
47
+34.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
−36.4%
14−16
+36.4%
Far Cry 5 27−30
−42.9%
40
+42.9%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−28.1%
40−45
+28.1%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
−30.4%
30−33
+30.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
−30%
24−27
+30%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 27−30
−32.1%
35−40
+32.1%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 10−12
−18.2%
12−14
+18.2%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
−4.2%
25
+4.2%
Metro Exodus 9−10
−44.4%
12−14
+44.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12
−91.7%
21−24
+91.7%
Valorant 70−75
−31.4%
90−95
+31.4%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 18−20
+28.6%
14
−28.6%
Counter-Strike 2 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Dota 2 45−50
−14.9%
54
+14.9%
Far Cry 5 12−14
−53.8%
20
+53.8%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−31.8%
27−30
+31.8%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
−33.3%
16−18
+33.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 71
+0%
71
+0%

This is how P2000 Max-Q and Pro 5500M compete in popular games:

  • Pro 5500M is 18% faster in 1080p
  • Pro 5500M is 33% faster in 1440p
  • Pro 5500M is 70% faster in 4K

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

  • in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the P2000 Max-Q is 296% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5500M is 113% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • P2000 Max-Q is ahead in 3 tests (4%)
  • Pro 5500M is ahead in 63 tests (93%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.44 17.25
Recency 5 July 2017 13 November 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm

Pro 5500M has a 28.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro 5500M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro P2000 Max-Q in performance tests.

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 P2000 Max-Q
Quadro P2000 Max-Q
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
Radeon Pro 5500M

Other comparisons

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.


4.3 15 votes

Rate Quadro P2000 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 272 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 5500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro P2000 Max-Q or Radeon Pro 5500M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.