Radeon Pro W5500 vs Quadro P4200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4200 with Radeon Pro W5500, including specs and performance data.
P4200 outperforms Pro W5500 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 | 269 | 300 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 13.74 |
| Power efficiency | 18.01 | 13.30 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 21 February 2018 (8 years ago) | 10 February 2020 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2304 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 1227 MHz | 1187 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1647 MHz | 1400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 125 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 237.2 | 123.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 7.589 TFLOPS | 3.942 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 144 | 88 |
| L1 Cache | 864 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 2 MB |
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 | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1502 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.3 GB/s | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 4x DisplayPort |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+10.8%
|
120−130
−10.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+15.6%
|
45−50
−15.6%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 55−60
+12%
|
50−55
−12%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+10.6%
|
85−90
−10.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+10.8%
|
120−130
−10.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+15.6%
|
45−50
−15.6%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 90−95
+15%
|
80−85
−15%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+10%
|
70−75
−10%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+17%
|
100−105
−17%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+10.6%
|
85−90
−10.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+9.4%
|
85−90
−9.4%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+9.3%
|
150−160
−9.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+10.6%
|
85−90
−10.6%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+10.8%
|
120−130
−10.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+10.9%
|
230−240
−10.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+15.6%
|
45−50
−15.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+10%
|
110−120
−10%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 90−95
+15%
|
80−85
−15%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+10%
|
70−75
−10%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+17%
|
100−105
−17%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+10.6%
|
85−90
−10.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+14.7%
|
75−80
−14.7%
|
| Metro Exodus | 50−55
+15.6%
|
45−50
−15.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+9.4%
|
85−90
−9.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
+16.7%
|
60−65
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+9.3%
|
150−160
−9.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+10.6%
|
85−90
−10.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+15.6%
|
45−50
−15.6%
|
| Dota 2 | 120−130
+10%
|
110−120
−10%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 90−95
+15%
|
80−85
−15%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+10%
|
70−75
−10%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+10.6%
|
85−90
−10.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 90−95
+9.4%
|
85−90
−9.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
+16.7%
|
60−65
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+9.3%
|
150−160
−9.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+17%
|
100−105
−17%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+13.3%
|
45−50
−13.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+12%
|
150−160
−12%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+22.9%
|
35−40
−22.9%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+18.5%
|
27−30
−18.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+8.8%
|
160−170
−8.8%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+12.9%
|
170−180
−12.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+10%
|
60−65
−10%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 50−55
+17.8%
|
45−50
−17.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+20%
|
45−50
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+10.9%
|
55−60
−10.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+8.6%
|
35−40
−8.6%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+14%
|
50−55
−14%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+10%
|
40−45
−10%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+11.1%
|
18−20
−11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+16.7%
|
30−33
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+9.2%
|
120−130
−9.2%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+23.3%
|
30−33
−23.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+9.5%
|
21−24
−9.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+11.4%
|
70−75
−11.4%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 24−27
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+16.7%
|
24−27
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+20%
|
35−40
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+19%
|
21−24
−19%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+8.3%
|
24−27
−8.3%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 23.33 | 21.54 |
| Recency | 21 February 2018 | 10 February 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 125 Watt |
Quadro P4200 has a 8% higher aggregate performance score, and 25% lower power consumption.
Pro W5500, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 129% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro P4200 and Radeon Pro W5500.
Be aware that Quadro P4200 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon Pro W5500 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
