Quadro K5000M vs Radeon Pro 555

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 555 and Quadro K5000M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro 555
2017
2 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
8.07
+11.9%

Pro 555 outperforms K5000M by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking524550
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data2.66
Power efficiency7.465.00
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code namePolaris 21GK104
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date5 June 2017 (7 years ago)7 August 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$329.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores7681344
Core clock speed850 MHz601 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate40.8067.31
Floating-point processing power1.306 TFLOPS1.615 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs48112

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 sizelargelarge
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1275 MHz750 MHz
Memory bandwidth81.6 GB/s96 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 outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
Optimus-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA-+

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.

Pro 555 8.07
+11.9%
K5000M 7.21

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
    • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
    • 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
    • GeekBench 5 OpenCL
    • Unigine Heaven 3.0

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.

Pro 555 3140
+11.9%
K5000M 2806

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.

Pro 555 5185
+6%
K5000M 4893

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.

Pro 555 3721
+33%
K5000M 2798

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.

Pro 555 22624
K5000M 23061
+1.9%

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.

Pro 555 11464
+124%
K5000M 5107

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

Pro 555 42
K5000M 47
+13.2%

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 HD32
−84.4%
59
+84.4%
4K13
+30%
10−12
−30%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data5.59
4Kno data33.00

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
Atomic Heart 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Atomic Heart 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Far Cry 5 26
+23.8%
21−24
−23.8%
Fortnite 82
+100%
40−45
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 31
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24
−4.2%
24−27
+4.2%
Valorant 75−80
+6.8%
70−75
−6.8%
Atomic Heart 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
+9.9%
110−120
−9.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Dota 2 55−60
+7.4%
50−55
−7.4%
Far Cry 5 24
+14.3%
21−24
−14.3%
Fortnite 29
−41.4%
40−45
+41.4%
Forza Horizon 4 26
−19.2%
30−35
+19.2%
Forza Horizon 5 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
Grand Theft Auto V 29
+16%
24−27
−16%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+15.4%
12−14
−15.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21
−19%
24−27
+19%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
+27.8%
18−20
−27.8%
Valorant 75−80
+6.8%
70−75
−6.8%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+7.1%
14−16
−7.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Dota 2 57
+5.6%
50−55
−5.6%
Far Cry 5 22
+4.8%
21−24
−4.8%
Forza Horizon 4 18
−72.2%
30−35
+72.2%
Forza Horizon 5 18−20
+18.8%
16−18
−18.8%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 13
−92.3%
24−27
+92.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%
Valorant 75−80
+6.8%
70−75
−6.8%
Fortnite 23
−78.3%
40−45
+78.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 55−60
+11.3%
50−55
−11.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+5.1%
35−40
−5.1%
Valorant 85−90
+11.5%
75−80
−11.5%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+23.1%
12−14
−23.1%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+12.5%
16−18
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 5 12−14
+18.2%
10−12
−18.2%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Fortnite 16−18
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Atomic Heart 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Valorant 35−40
+11.4%
35−40
−11.4%
Battlefield 5 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 27−30
+12%
24−27
−12%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how Pro 555 and K5000M compete in popular games:

  • K5000M is 84% faster in 1080p
  • Pro 555 is 30% faster in 4K

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

  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Pro 555 is 100% faster.
  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the K5000M is 92% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro 555 is ahead in 53 tests (79%)
  • K5000M is ahead in 8 tests (12%)
  • there's a draw in 6 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.07 7.21
Recency 5 June 2017 7 August 2012
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 100 Watt

Pro 555 has a 11.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

K5000M, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Radeon Pro 555 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K5000M 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.


AMD Radeon Pro 555
Radeon Pro 555
NVIDIA Quadro K5000M
Quadro K5000M

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.


3.6
93 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 555 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3
87 votes

Rate Quadro K5000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon Pro 555 or Quadro K5000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.