AMD Radeon Pro 555 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 and AMD Radeon Pro 555 are both end-of-life professional graphics solutions, but they target different platforms and exhibit distinct performance profiles. The data available shows a clear overall winner in the shared benchmark suite, yet the Radeon Pro 555 counters with a strong showing in a test the Quadro does not participate in. This analysis walks through the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and specification gaps to determine which card holds up better in its respective ecosystem.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards share two benchmark results: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 decisively outperforms the AMD Radeon Pro 555.

The largest margin comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test. The Quadro M2000 scores 14,588, while the Radeon Pro 555 trails at 11,682. That difference translates to a 24.9% advantage for NVIDIA. This is a substantial gap, indicating that in compute workloads leveraging OpenCL, the Quadro M2000 delivers roughly a quarter more performance. The Radeon Pro 555’s score of 11,682 places it closer to its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon HD 8950M (13,376, 0.2% delta) and the AMD Radeon RX 5500M (13,356, 0.4% delta), showing it sits in a lower performance tier than the Quadro.

In the Geekbench Vulkan test, the gap narrows but remains firmly in NVIDIA’s favor. The Quadro M2000 posts 14,475, against the Radeon Pro 555’s 12,303. This is a 17.7% lead for NVIDIA. While the Vulkan margin is smaller than OpenCL, it still represents a significant performance advantage. Notably, the Quadro’s Vulkan score (14,475) is nearly identical to its OpenCL score, suggesting consistent cross-API performance. The Radeon Pro 555’s Vulkan score (12,303) is slightly higher than its OpenCL result, but still well behind the Quadro.

The data shows a 2-0 win count for the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 in the head-to-head tests. However, the Radeon Pro 555 has a third benchmark result not present in the Quadro’s data set: Geekbench Metal. In that test, the Radeon Pro 555 scores 16,236, which is its highest individual benchmark score and higher than either of the Quadro’s results. This indicates that in Apple’s Metal API environment, the Radeon Pro 555 has a distinct performance strength, although a direct comparison with the Quadro is not possible from the provided data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL test, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 wins, scoring 14,588 against the AMD Radeon Pro 555’s 11,682. This gives NVIDIA a 24.9% lead in that test.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon Pro 555 beat the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 in any shared benchmark?

A: No. In the two tests they share (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), the Quadro M2000 wins both. The Radeon Pro 555 only posts a higher score in Geekbench Metal, a test not listed for the Quadro.

Q: How does the NVIDIA Quadro M2000’s average benchmark score compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro M2000 has an average benchmark score of 14,532. It is 0.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M (14,404), 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385), and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14,373). It is 1.1% behind the AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT (14,692).

Q: What is the AMD Radeon Pro 555’s percentile ranking, and how does that reflect its position?

A: The Radeon Pro 555 sits in the 54th percentile of all GPUs. This places it just below the Quadro M2000, which is in the 56th percentile, indicating the Radeon is a slightly lower-performing part overall.

Q: Are there any benchmark results where the Radeon Pro 555 shows a particular strength?

A: Yes, in Geekbench Metal, the Radeon Pro 555 scores 16,236. This is notably higher than its OpenCL (11,682) and Vulkan (12,303) scores, and higher than the Quadro’s scores in either shared test.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has an average benchmark score of 14,532. The AMD Radeon Pro 555 has a lower average of 13,407.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures and manufacturing processes. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip, based on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, and is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon Pro 555 uses the Polaris 21 chip, based on GCN 4.0, and is built on a smaller 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This process difference is significant: the Radeon’s 14 nm node allows for a much higher transistor density.

The transistor counts are close, with the Quadro at 2,940 million and the Radeon at 3,000 million. However, the die size differs dramatically. The Quadro M2000 has a 228 mm² die, while the Radeon Pro 555 has a much smaller 123 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 12.9M / mm² for the NVIDIA chip versus 24.4M / mm² for the AMD chip. The Radeon packs nearly twice as many transistors per square millimeter, a direct benefit of the more advanced 14 nm process.

In terms of compute resources, both cards have 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units (TMUs). The key architectural difference lies in the render output units (ROPs). The Quadro M2000 has 32 ROPs, while the Radeon Pro 555 has only 16. This directly impacts pixel fill rate: the Quadro achieves 37.22 GPixel/s, whereas the Radeon Pro 555 manages just 13.60 GPixel/s. The texture fill rates also differ, with the Quadro at 55.82 GTexel/s and the Radeon at 40.80 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is also higher on the Quadro, at 1.786 TFLOPS versus 1,305.6 GFLOPS on the Radeon.

The Radeon Pro 555 does support FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (1,305.6 GFLOPS), a feature not listed for the Quadro. On the API front, the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon supports Vulkan 1.3.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference is memory capacity. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the AMD Radeon Pro 555 has only 2 GB. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but the Quadro’s memory clock is higher at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) versus the Radeon’s 1275 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective). This leads to a bandwidth advantage for the Quadro: 105.8 GB/s versus 81.60 GB/s for the Radeon.

Clock speeds are another point of divergence. The Quadro M2000 has a base clock of 796 MHz and a boost clock of 1163 MHz. The Radeon Pro 555 has no base or boost clock listed, only its memory clock. The power consumption is identical at 75 W TDP for both, and neither requires power connectors.

The physical form factors are entirely different. The Quadro M2000 is a single-slot card with a length of 201 mm (7.9 inches) and a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), and it uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The Radeon Pro 555 is an integrated GPU (IGP) with no dimensions listed, and it uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The display outputs also differ: the Quadro offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon’s outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile/integrated nature. The Quadro also has a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Radeon has none listed.

The release dates are about 14 months apart, with the Quadro launching on 2016-04-07 and the Radeon on 2017-06-04. Neither card has a listed launch MSRP. The Quadro has a predecessor (Quadro Kepler) and successor (Quadro Pascal) listed, while the Radeon has neither.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is the superior performer. It wins both shared benchmarks decisively, with a 24.9% lead in OpenCL and a 17.7% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score of 14,532 is higher than the Radeon Pro 555’s 13,407, and it ranks in the 56th percentile versus the Radeon’s 54th. The Quadro also holds a specification advantage in memory capacity (4 GB vs 2 GB), bandwidth (105.8 GB/s vs 81.60 GB/s), and pixel fill rate (37.22 GPixel/s vs 13.60 GPixel/s).

However, the Radeon Pro 555 is not without merit. Its Geekbench Metal score of 16,236 is the single highest benchmark result among both cards’ scores, and it surpasses the Quadro’s best result (14,588 in OpenCL). This suggests that in the Metal environment, the Radeon Pro 555 could be the faster option. Given that the Radeon Pro 555 is an IGP designed for portable devices, it serves a completely different market segment than the single-slot desktop Quadro.

The verdict comes down to platform and workload. For a desktop workstation requiring maximum compute performance in OpenCL or Vulkan, the Quadro M2000 is the clear choice from this data. For a portable Mac environment where Metal is the primary API, the Radeon Pro 555’s Metal score indicates it holds a specific advantage.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 wins in every shared benchmark category. In Geekbench OpenCL, it holds a 24.9% lead, and in Geekbench Vulkan, a 17.7% lead. It also wins on raw specifications: double the memory (4 GB vs 2 GB), higher memory bandwidth (105.8 GB/s vs 81.60 GB/s), double the ROPs (32 vs 16), and higher FP32 throughput (1.786 TFLOPS vs 1,305.6 GFLOPS). This makes it the stronger choice for general-purpose compute, rendering, and any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan on a desktop platform. Its 201 mm single-slot design allows for straightforward installation in a standard workstation.

The AMD Radeon Pro 555 wins in the Geekbench Metal test, where it scores 16,236. This is the only test where it posts a score higher than any of the Quadro’s results. This makes it the preferable option for Metal-based applications, which are common in the Apple ecosystem. Its integrated form factor (IGP) and PCIe 3.0 x8 interface suggest it is designed for laptops or all-in-one systems where space and power are constrained. The Radeon also has a smaller die (123 mm²) and higher transistor density (24.4M / mm²), indicating a more efficient use of the 14 nm process, though this does not translate into better benchmark performance in the shared tests. For users who prioritize Metal performance in a portable device, the Radeon Pro 555 is the data-backed pick.