AMD Radeon 550X vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a clear, consistent advantage for the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M in both tested workloads. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M2000M scores 10,057 points against the AMD Radeon 550X’s 8,866 points, a delta of 13.4%. This is the largest margin between the two cards in the database. The Vulkan test narrows the gap somewhat, with the NVIDIA card scoring 9,606 versus 8,970 for the AMD part, a 7.1% lead. Across both tests, the Quadro M2000M wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head comparisons.

Context from the nearest rival lists reinforces the significance of these scores. The Quadro M2000M’s average benchmark score is 9,832, which places it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (avg 9,846) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000 (avg 9,803). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (avg 9,780) by 0.5% and the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (avg 9,724) by 1.1%. The Radeon 550X, with an average score of 8,918, sits in a different performance tier. It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 (avg 9,022) by 1.2% and the NVIDIA TITAN V CEO Edition (avg 9,037) by 1.3%. Its closest positive comparisons are against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 (avg 8,863, 0.6% ahead) and the AMD Radeon R9 M265X (avg 8,851, 0.8% ahead). This positioning shows that the Quadro M2000M operates in a class roughly 10% higher than the Radeon 550X in aggregate compute performance.

The percentile data reinforces this hierarchy. The Quadro M2000M sits at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon 550X rests at the 45th percentile. That two-point spread might seem small, but the actual score difference of 914 points (9,832 vs 8,918) represents a meaningful gulf in real workload throughput, especially in compute-heavy tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design generations. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is built on the Maxwell architecture, specifically the GM107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The AMD Radeon 550X uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Lexa chip, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. That chip holds 2,200 million transistors on a smaller 103 mm² die, giving it a higher density of 21.4 million per mm². The newer process node allows AMD to fit more transistors in less space, but the architectural design choices differ substantially.

The compute resources diverge in interesting ways. The Quadro M2000M has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The Radeon 550X has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and also 16 ROPs. Even with fewer shading units, the AMD card achieves a higher pixel rate of 19.49 GPixel/s compared to the NVIDIA card’s 18.19 GPixel/s. However, the NVIDIA card wins on texture rate at 45.48 GTexel/s versus 38.98 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 throughput, the Quadro M2000M delivers 1,455.4 GFLOPS, while the Radeon 550X produces 1,247.2 GFLOPS. Notably, the AMD card also has FP16 capability at 1,247.2 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), a feature the NVIDIA card does not list.

Memory configurations differ in capacity but not bus width. Both use GDDR5 on a 128-bit interface. The Quadro M2000M offers 4 GB with 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Radeon 550X provides only 2 GB but achieves a higher 112.0 GB/s due to faster memory clocks (7 Gbps effective versus 5 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA card also has a lower base clock of 1098 MHz with a boost of 1137 MHz, while the AMD card starts at 1082 MHz and boosts to 1218 MHz. The higher boost clock helps the Radeon 550X close some of the gap in rasterization-bound tasks, but the NVIDIA card’s larger shader count and higher FP32 output keep it ahead in compute.

Power and physical specifications also differ. The Quadro M2000M is an MXM module with a 55 W TDP and no power connectors, designed for portable systems. The Radeon 550X is a dual-slot card, 145 mm long (5.7 inches), with a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the NVIDIA card uses MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs reflect their intended markets: the Quadro M2000M is listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” while the Radeon 550X offers 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has an average benchmark score of 9,832, which is 914 points higher than the AMD Radeon 550X’s average of 8,918.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 550X win any head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M winning both tests: Geekbench OpenCL (10,057 vs 8,866) and Geekbench Vulkan (9,606 vs 8,970).

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon 550X has a significant bandwidth advantage at 112.0 GB/s, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M offers 80.19 GB/s. Both use GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the AMD card’s memory runs at 7 Gbps effective versus 5 Gbps for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has 640 shading units, compared to 512 on the AMD Radeon 550X. This contributes to its higher FP32 compute of 1,455.4 GFLOPS versus 1,247.2 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 550X has a higher transistor density at 21.4 million per mm², thanks to its 14 nm process and 103 mm² die. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M, on a 28 nm process with a 148 mm² die, achieves 12.6 million per mm².

Q: Are there any API differences that could affect compatibility?

A: Yes. The AMD Radeon 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two cards differ directly.

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro M2000M | AMD Radeon 550X |

|-------|----------------------|-----------------|

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1098 MHz | 1082 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1137 MHz | 1218 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 5 Gbps effective | 7 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 512 |

| TMUs | 40 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.19 GPixel/s | 19.49 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 45.48 GTexel/s | 38.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,455.4 GFLOPS | 1,247.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 1,247.2 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 55 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Version | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan Version | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Length | Not listed | 145 mm (5.7 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-12-02 | 2019-03-26 |

The Verdict

The data strongly favors the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M for any task that prioritizes raw compute performance. Its 13.4% lead in OpenCL and 7.1% lead in Vulkan are not marginal; they represent a consistent performance tier gap. The Quadro M2000M also has double the memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB), which matters for larger datasets or multi-application workflows. Its higher average benchmark score of 9,832 versus 8,918 places it in the company of much more powerful cards, as evidenced by its near-parity with the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 and its lead over the GeForce GTX 1070.

However, the AMD Radeon 550X is not without merit. It delivers higher memory bandwidth (112.0 GB/s), a faster boost clock (1218 MHz), and a higher pixel rate (19.49 GPixel/s). For workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive or fill-rate-bound, the AMD card could close the gap. It also has a lower TDP of 50 W versus 55 W, and its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is more standard for desktop integration than the MXM module format of the NVIDIA card. The Radeon 550X also supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro M2000M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0), which could matter for specific modern titles or APIs.

The release dates tell a story of generational distance: the Quadro M2000M launched in 2015, while the Radeon 550X came in 2019. Despite the four-year gap, the older NVIDIA architecture still outpaces the newer AMD part in the recorded benchmarks. This suggests that the Quadro M2000M was engineered for professional-grade compute, while the Radeon 550X was positioned as a more modest, efficiency-focused option.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its higher FP32 output (1,455.4 GFLOPS), more shading units (640), and superior texture rate (45.48 GTexel/s) make it the better choice for OpenCL workloads, as shown by its 13.4% head-to-head victory. The Vulkan test also favors it by 7.1%, indicating that it handles graphics API workloads with more headroom. The 4 GB memory capacity is a clear advantage for multi-tasking or holding larger textures and buffers.

The AMD Radeon 550X wins in bandwidth-constrained scenarios. Its 112.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth is nearly 40% higher than the NVIDIA card’s 80.19 GB/s, which can help in tasks that repeatedly stream data across the bus. Its higher pixel rate of 19.49 GPixel/s makes it more efficient at pure rasterization throughput, and its faster boost clock of 1218 MHz gives it a peak frequency advantage. The lower TDP of 50 W and the standard PCIe 3.0 x8 interface make it easier to slot into a conventional desktop build without specialized MXM support. For users who prioritize physical size, the 145 mm dual-slot card offers a more traditional form factor than the MXM module.

In the end, the choice depends on whether the workload is compute-bound or memory-bound. The recorded data shows the Quadro M2000M winning the two benchmark tests that matter most in this comparison, but the Radeon 550X’s specifications suggest it could hold its own in scenarios where raw bandwidth and fill rate are the limiting factors.