FirePro M2000 vs Radeon Pro 555
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 555 and FirePro M2000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro 555 outperforms M2000 by a whopping 642% 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 | 575 | 1145 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 7.66 | 2.35 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | Turks |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 5 June 2017 (8 years ago) | 1 July 2012 (13 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 | 768 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 716 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 40.80 | 12.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.306 TFLOPS | 0.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 48 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 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 | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | n/a |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Form factor | no data | chip-down |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1275 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.6 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| 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 |
| StereoOutput3D | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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:
| 900p | 65−70
+622%
| 9
−622%
|
| Full HD | 32
+100%
| 16
−100%
|
| 4K | 13
+1200%
| 1−2
−1200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+680%
|
5−6
−680%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+680%
|
5−6
−680%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+1200%
|
2−3
−1200%
|
| Fortnite | 82
+8100%
|
1−2
−8100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 31
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+155%
|
30−35
−155%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+680%
|
5−6
−680%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+384%
|
24−27
−384%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+287%
|
14−16
−287%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Fortnite | 29
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 29
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21
+133%
|
9−10
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 23
+283%
|
6−7
−283%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+155%
|
30−35
−155%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Dota 2 | 57
+280%
|
14−16
−280%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 22
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+155%
|
30−35
−155%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 23
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+867%
|
6−7
−867%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+282%
|
10−12
−282%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+8400%
|
1−2
−8400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14−16
−28.6%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 35−40
+680%
|
5−6
−680%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
This is how Pro 555 and FirePro M2000 compete in popular games:
- Pro 555 is 622% faster in 900p
- Pro 555 is 100% faster in 1080p
- Pro 555 is 1200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 555 is 8400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Pro 555 surpassed FirePro M2000 in all 44 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.42 | 1.00 |
| Recency | 5 June 2017 | 1 July 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 33 Watt |
Pro 555 has a 642% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
FirePro M2000, on the other hand, has 127.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro 555 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M2000 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
