Quadro M2000M vs Radeon Pro 555X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon Pro 555X and Quadro M2000M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Pro 555X
2018
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
8.40

M2000M outperforms Pro 555X by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking504487
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.6811.17
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code namePolaris 21GM107
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date16 July 2018 (6 years ago)3 December 2015 (9 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 cores768640
Core clock speed907 MHz1029 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1098 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate43.5443.92
Floating-point processing power1.393 TFLOPS1.405 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs4840

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-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1275 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth81.6 GB/s80 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
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
Optimus-+
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA-5.0

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. 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.

Pro 555X 8.40
M2000M 8.96
+6.7%

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 555X 3235
M2000M 3452
+6.7%

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 555X 12705
+29.7%
M2000M 9796

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

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 Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

Pro 555X 13051
+36.9%
M2000M 9534

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 HD30−35
−20%
36
+20%
4K10−12
−20%
12
+20%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−4.8%
21−24
+4.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
Battlefield 5 24−27
−8%
27−30
+8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−10.5%
21−24
+10.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
−8.7%
24−27
+8.7%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−7.1%
60−65
+7.1%
Hitman 3 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−4.2%
50−55
+4.2%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−12%
27−30
+12%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−8.7%
24−27
+8.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
−3.4%
60−65
+3.4%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−4.8%
21−24
+4.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
Battlefield 5 24−27
−8%
27−30
+8%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−10.5%
21−24
+10.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
−8.7%
24−27
+8.7%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−7.1%
60−65
+7.1%
Hitman 3 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−4.2%
50−55
+4.2%
Metro Exodus 24−27
−12%
27−30
+12%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−8.7%
24−27
+8.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
−200%
72
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
−3.4%
60−65
+3.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24
−4.8%
21−24
+4.8%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 16−18
−5.9%
18−20
+5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%
Far Cry 5 18−20
−10.5%
21−24
+10.5%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
−7.1%
60−65
+7.1%
Hitman 3 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
−4.2%
50−55
+4.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+71.4%
14
−71.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
−3.4%
60−65
+3.4%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
−8.7%
24−27
+8.7%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
−6.3%
16−18
+6.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
−7.7%
14−16
+7.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
−11.8%
35−40
+11.8%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
−5.6%
18−20
+5.6%
Metro Exodus 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
−7.5%
55−60
+7.5%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
−7.1%
14−16
+7.1%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 30−35
−12.5%
35−40
+12.5%
Metro Exodus 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−80%
9
+80%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
−10%
10−12
+10%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%

This is how Pro 555X and M2000M compete in popular games:

  • M2000M is 20% faster in 1080p
  • M2000M is 20% faster in 4K

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

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Pro 555X is 71% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the M2000M is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro 555X is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • M2000M is ahead in 61 test (85%)
  • there's a draw in 10 tests (14%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.40 8.96
Recency 16 July 2018 3 December 2015
Chip lithography 14 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 55 Watt

Pro 555X has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

M2000M, on the other hand, has a 6.7% higher aggregate performance score, and 36.4% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon Pro 555X and Quadro M2000M.


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

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 555X
Radeon Pro 555X
NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
Quadro M2000M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.8 166 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 500 votes

Rate Quadro M2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

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