AMD Radeon Pro 5500M vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data delivers a clear verdict: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins every single head-to-head test recorded in the database. Out of nine direct comparisons, the Quadro P4000 takes all nine, leaving the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M with zero wins. This is not a close contest. The largest margins appear in older DirectX workloads, while the gap narrows somewhat in modern compute and API tests.

The Quadro P4000 dominates in legacy DirectX performance. In PassMark DirectX 9, it scores 181 against the Radeon Pro 5500M's 96, a 47% advantage. DirectX 10 shows a 45.5% lead (66 versus 36), and DirectX 11 widens further to 51.2% (86 versus 42). These are substantial gaps that point to the Pascal architecture's strength in older, driver-optimized rendering paths. For any workstation running legacy OpenGL or DirectX 9/10/11 applications, the P4000 is the clear choice.

The Radeon Pro 5500M does not flip the script in modern APIs either. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro P4000 scores 41786 versus 35134, a 15.9% lead. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P4000 posts 36212 against 31088, a 14.2% advantage. Even in the newest DirectX 12 test, PassMark DirectX 12, the P4000 wins by 27.5% (40 versus 29). The Radeon's RDNA 1.0 architecture cannot overcome the Quadro's raw throughput advantages.

The compute workloads tell a similar story. PassMark GPU Compute favors the Quadro P4000 at 4913 versus 3240, a 34.1% margin. The overall PassMark G3D score is equally lopsided: 11466 for the NVIDIA card versus 6732 for the AMD card, a 41.3% difference. The only category where the Radeon Pro 5500M comes within single digits is Geekbench OpenCL, but that still ends in a P4000 victory.

For users prioritizing raw legacy graphics compatibility, professional OpenGL/DirectX workloads, or general compute throughput, the Quadro P4000 wins outright. The Radeon Pro 5500M offers no benchmark category where it leads, making it difficult to recommend on performance alone.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip built on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on TSMC's 7 nm process. It packs 6,400 million transistors into a 158 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 uses the GP104 chip with Pascal architecture, built on TSMC's 16 nm process, with 7,200 million transistors spread across a much larger 314 mm² die, giving a density of 22.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The Radeon is clearly the more modern, denser design.

Memory configurations differ substantially. The Radeon Pro 5500M uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 192.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro P4000 also has 8 GB, but uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 243.3 GB/s. Despite the older memory type, the P4000's wider bus grants it 26.7% more bandwidth. Effective memory speed is 12 Gbps for the AMD card versus 7.6 Gbps for the NVIDIA card, but the bus width advantage wins out.

Core counts favor the Quadro P4000 in most categories. It has 1792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The Radeon Pro 5500M has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The P4000 leads in every core count category, which directly explains its higher pixel rate and texture rate. Pixel rate is 94.72 GPixel/s for the P4000 versus 46.40 GPixel/s for the Radeon, a 2.04x advantage. Texture rate is 165.8 GTexel/s versus 139.2 GTexel/s, a 19.1% lead.

Clock speeds differ in an interesting way. The Quadro P4000 has a higher base clock of 1202 MHz versus 1000 MHz, and a higher boost clock of 1480 MHz versus 1450 MHz. The Radeon Pro 5500M compensates with FP16 throughput rated at 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the Pascal card is extremely weak at FP16, rated at only 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio). FP32 performance still favors the P4000 at 5.304 TFLOPS versus 4.454 TFLOPS, a 19.1% lead.

The physical and platform profiles also differ. The Quadro P4000 is a single-slot card, 241 mm long and 111 mm tall, with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested 300 W power supply. The Radeon Pro 5500M has no power connectors because it is designed for portable devices, with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The P4000 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The Radeon uses PCIe 4.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon draws 85 W versus the Quadro's 105 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the Quadro P4000 comes in PassMark DirectX 11, where it scores 86 against the Radeon's 42, a 51.2% advantage. This is the kind of margin that matters for professional applications still using DirectX 11 pipelines. DirectX 9 follows closely with a 47% lead (181 versus 96), and DirectX 10 shows a 45.5% lead (66 versus 36). These three legacy tests demonstrate a consistent pattern: Pascal's mature driver stack and higher core counts crush RDNA 1.0 in older APIs.

The PassMark G3D score of 11466 versus 6732 represents a 41.3% gap, the second-largest margin after DirectX 11. This aggregate 3D performance metric confirms that the Quadro P4000 delivers substantially more graphics throughput in the database's standard workloads. GPU compute follows at 34.1% (4913 versus 3240), showing the P4000 also handles general compute tasks with more authority.

In modern API tests, the margins shrink but the winner does not change. Geekbench Vulkan shows a 15.9% lead for the P4000 (41786 versus 35134). Geekbench OpenCL shows a 14.2% lead (36212 versus 31088). PassMark DirectX 12 lands at 27.5% (40 versus 29). Even the 2D test, PassMark G2D, goes to the P4000 by 17.6% (786 versus 648). The Radeon Pro 5500M's best relative showing is in OpenCL, but it still loses by double digits.

The data indicates the Radeon Pro 5500M is not competitive with the Quadro P4000 in any recorded benchmark. The architecture's newer process node and RDNA 1.0 features do not translate into measurable wins. The Quadro's higher shading unit count, wider memory bus, and higher pixel rate dominate across the board.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins with a score of 36212 against 31088 for the AMD Radeon Pro 5500M, a 14.2% advantage.

Q: How do the two cards compare in PassMark DirectX 11 performance?

A: The Quadro P4000 scores 86 while the Radeon Pro 5500M scores 42, giving the NVIDIA card a 51.2% lead, the largest margin in any head-to-head test.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro 5500M win any benchmark against the Quadro P4000?

A: No. In the nine recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Quadro P4000 wins all nine, and the Radeon Pro 5500M records zero wins.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P4000 has 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth thanks to its 256-bit bus, while the Radeon Pro 5500M has 192.0 GB/s from a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Radeon Pro 5500M has a density of 40.5 million transistors per square millimeter on a 7 nm process, while the Quadro P4000 has 22.9 million per square millimeter on a 16 nm process.

Q: How do the FP32 compute figures compare?

A: The Quadro P4000 delivers 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the Radeon Pro 5500M delivers 4.454 TFLOPS, a 19.1% difference in favor of NVIDIA.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to one conclusion: choose the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 if you need the fastest recorded performance in the database's tests. It wins every head-to-head benchmark, with margins ranging from 14.2% in Geekbench OpenCL to 51.2% in PassMark DirectX 11. The aggregate PassMark G3D score of 11466 versus 6732 shows a 41.3% overall 3D performance advantage that is difficult to ignore.

The Quadro P4000 is the better option for professional users running legacy DirectX 9, 10, or 11 applications. The 45.5% to 51.2% margins in those tests make it the dominant choice for older workstation software. It also leads in modern Vulkan and OpenCL workloads, though by smaller margins of roughly 14% to 16%. Compute tasks favor the P4000 by 34.1%, and 2D performance favors it by 17.6%.

The AMD Radeon Pro 5500M should only be considered when its form factor matters. It requires no power connectors and is designed for portable devices, whereas the Quadro P4000 is a single-slot card needing a 1x 6-pin connector. The Radeon also draws 85 W versus 105 W for the Quadro. For a laptop or compact mobile workstation where the GPU must operate without external power, the Radeon Pro 5500M is the practical choice. Its 7 nm RDNA 1.0 architecture also provides much stronger FP16 performance at 8.909 TFLOPS versus 82.88 GFLOPS, which could matter for workloads that leverage half-precision math.

But for raw performance in the database's measured tests, the Quadro P4000 wins decisively. The launch MSRP of the Quadro P4000 is 815 USD. The Radeon Pro 5500M has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither card is in current production; both are end-of-life products. If performance per benchmark is the priority, the data says NVIDIA. If mobile integration and lower power draw are the priorities, the data says AMD.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon Pro 5500M | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 |

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

| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 7 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 6,400 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 158 mm² | 314 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 40.5M / mm² | 22.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1202 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1450 MHz | 1480 MHz |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | 243.3 GB/s |

| Memory Speed | 12 Gbps effective | 7.6 Gbps effective |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 96 | 112 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 46.40 GPixel/s | 94.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 139.2 GTexel/s | 165.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 4.454 TFLOPS | 5.304 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | 8.909 TFLOPS (2:1) | 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | 85 W | 105 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | None | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Slot Width | None | Single-slot |

| Dimensions | None | 241 mm (9.5 inches) x 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2019-11-12 | 2017-02-05 |

| Predecessor | None | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | None | Quadro Volta |

| Launch MSRP | None | 815 USD |

| Average Benchmark Score | 11528 | 9665 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 51 | 47 |