Radeon Pro 5500M vs HD 7480D
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7480D with Radeon Pro 5500M, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5500M outperforms HD 7480D by a whopping 2303% 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 | 1241 | 365 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.79 | 14.59 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | Scrapper Lite | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (13 years ago) | 13 November 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $53 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 128 | 1536 |
| Core clock speed | 723 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | 1450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 85 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 6.400 | 139.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2048 TFLOPS | 4.454 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 96 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 192.0 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 | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 | 11
−418%
| 57
+418%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−2850%
| 59
+2850%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−3100%
| 32
+3100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.82 | no data |
| 1440p | 26.50 | no data |
| 4K | 53.00 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 50−55 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1260%
|
65−70
+1260%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−663%
|
60−65
+663%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−352%
|
130−140
+352%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27
−670%
|
208
+670%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−825%
|
111
+825%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 50−55 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1260%
|
65−70
+1260%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−3600%
|
37
+3600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−663%
|
60−65
+663%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1033%
|
68
+1033%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−352%
|
130−140
+352%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1650%
|
35−40
+1650%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−792%
|
107
+792%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 55 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1260%
|
65−70
+1260%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−663%
|
60−65
+663%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−550%
|
39
+550%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+3.6%
|
28
−3.6%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−967%
|
30−35
+967%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−3833%
|
118
+3833%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1429%
|
107
+1429%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1100%
|
24−27
+1100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−3600%
|
35−40
+3600%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−78.6%
|
25
+78.6%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−2967%
|
90−95
+2967%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 76
+0%
|
76
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 69
+0%
|
69
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
This is how HD 7480D and Pro 5500M compete in popular games:
- Pro 5500M is 418% faster in 1080p
- Pro 5500M is 2850% faster in 1440p
- Pro 5500M is 3100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 7480D is 4% faster.
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5500M is 3833% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 7480D performs better in 1 test (2%)
- Pro 5500M performs better in 28 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (50%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.67 | 16.10 |
| Recency | 2 October 2012 | 13 November 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 85 Watt |
HD 7480D has 31% lower power consumption.
Pro 5500M, on the other hand, has a 2303% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 357% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro 5500M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7480D in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7480D is a desktop graphics card while Radeon Pro 5500M 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.
