NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile vs AMD Radeon Pro 5500M

Buy
VS
Buy
Price now 2221$
Games supported 83%
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile
Buy
  • Interface PCIe 3.0 x16
  • Core clock speed 1575
  • Max video memory 4 GB
  • Memory type GDDR5
  • Memory clock speed 8000
  • Maximum resolution
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
Radeon Pro 5500M
Buy
  • Interface PCIe 4.0 x8
  • Core clock speed
  • Max video memory 8 GB
  • Memory type GDDR6
  • Memory clock speed 12000
  • Maximum resolution
Price now 1950$
Games supported 84%

General info

Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.

Place in performance rating239225
Value for money3.885.13
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2021)Navi / RDNA (2019−2020)
GPU code nameN19P-Q3Navi 14
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date27 May 2019 (3 years ago)13 November 2019 (2 years ago)
Current price$2221 $1950
Value for money

To get the index we compare the characteristics of video cards and their relative prices.

  • 0
  • 50
  • 100
  • 0
  • 50
  • 100

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores10241536
Core clock speed1575 MHzno data
Boost clock speed1785 MHz1300 MHz
Number of transistors4,700 million6,400 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm7 nm
Thermal design power (TDP)60 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate114.2139.2

Compatibility, dimensions and requirements

Information on Quadro T2000 Mobile and Radeon Pro 5500M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizemedium sizedmedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

Memory

Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed8000 MHz12000 MHz
Memory bandwidth128.0 GB/s192.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

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 outputsNo outputs

API support

APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.56.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.2.131
CUDA7.5no data

Benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.


Overall score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

T2000 Mobile 21.02
Pro 5500M 22.93
+9.1%
  • Passmark
  • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU

This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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.

Benchmark coverage: 26%

T2000 Mobile 7985
+17.4%
Pro 5500M 6799

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

T2000 Mobile 13524
Pro 5500M 14725
+8.9%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HDno data57
1440pno data49
4Kno data31

Popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Battlefield 5 21−24
−262%
76
+262%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
−219%
67
+219%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Hitman 3 21−24
−286%
81
+286%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−162%
55
+162%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
−176%
58
+176%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Battlefield 5 21−24
−195%
62
+195%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
+23.5%
17
−23.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
−205%
64
+205%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Hitman 3 21−24
−205%
64
+205%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Metro Exodus 21−24
−76.2%
37
+76.2%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−33.3%
28
+33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
−138%
50
+138%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−224%
68
+224%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Battlefield 5 21−24
−181%
59
+181%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−162%
55
+162%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
−171%
57
+171%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−85.7%
39
+85.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Hitman 3 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Metro Exodus 21−24
−4.8%
22
+4.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
−42.9%
30
+42.9%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Battlefield 5 21−24
−124%
47
+124%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Far Cry 5 21−24
−90.5%
40
+90.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
−95.2%
41
+95.2%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Hitman 3 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Metro Exodus 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+61.5%
13
−61.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Battlefield 5 21−24
+50%
14
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+5%
20
−5%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+0%
21
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21−24
−9.5%
21−24
+9.5%

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance rating 21.02 22.93
Novelty 27 May 2019 13 November 2019
Pipelines / CUDA cores 1024 1536
Memory bandwidth 128 192
Chip lithography 12 nm 7 nm
Thermal design power (TDP) 60 Watt 50 Watt

Technical City couldn't decide between

NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile
NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile

and

AMD Radeon Pro 5500M
AMD Radeon Pro 5500M

The differences in performance seem too small.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Cast your vote

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Competitors of Quadro T2000 Mobile by AMD

We believe that the nearest equivalent to Quadro T2000 Mobile from AMD is Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL, which is slower by 3% and lower by 3 positions in our rating.

AMD Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL Radeon Pro WX Vega M GL
Compare

Here are some closest AMD rivals to Quadro T2000 Mobile:

Competitors of Radeon Pro 5500M by NVIDIA

We believe that the nearest equivalent to Radeon Pro 5500M from NVIDIA is Quadro T600 Mobile, which is nearly equal in speed and higher by 1 position in our rating.

NVIDIA Quadro T600 Mobile Quadro T600 Mobile
Compare

Here are some closest NVIDIA rivals to Radeon Pro 5500M:

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance more or less close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User rating

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 75 ratings

Rate NVIDIA Quadro T2000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 178 ratings

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.