AMD Radeon Pro W5500X vs NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the benchmark scores of the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q and AMD Radeon Pro W5500X compare?

A: The recorded data shows the GRID M60-1Q scores 31,220 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the W5500X scores 27,973 in Geekbench Metal. These are different API tests, so the head-to-head comparison is indirect, but the GRID card sits at the 76th percentile of all GPUs versus the 73rd percentile for the AMD card.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density, and what does that indicate?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X has a transistor density of 40.5M per mm², compared to 13.1M per mm² for the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q. This difference reflects the manufacturing process gap: the AMD card uses a 7 nm node while the NVIDIA card uses a 28 nm node.

Q: What are the memory capacities and types of these two cards?

A: The GRID M60-1Q has 1 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro W5500X has 8 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is higher despite the narrower bus.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q has a TDP of 225 W and requires a 550 W suggested PSU, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X has a TDP of 125 W and only needs a 300 W suggested PSU. The AMD card is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which card supports more advanced graphics APIs?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. There is no difference in API support between the two based on the recorded specifications.

Q: What are the release dates and production statuses of these cards?

A: The NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q was released on August 29, 2015, and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X was released on December 10, 2019. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains no direct head-to-head benchmark results between the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q and the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X. Instead, each card has a single recorded benchmark using a different API: the GRID card runs Geekbench Vulkan, and the W5500X runs Geekbench Metal. This makes a strict comparison difficult, but the percentile rankings provide context. The GRID M60-1Q scores 31,220, placing it in the 76th percentile, while the W5500X scores 27,973, placing it in the 73rd percentile. The raw score difference is 3,247 points, which is approximately 11.6% higher for the NVIDIA card.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the GRID M60-1Q sits within a tight cluster. Its score of 31,220 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA Quadro M5000, which scores 31,206 (a 0% delta). It is 0.4% ahead of the GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER, which scores 31,087. Against higher-tier cards, the GRID M60-1Q trails the RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell by 1% and the TITAN RTX by 1.4%. This indicates the GRID card performs near the top of its immediate competitive set despite its age.

For the AMD side, the Radeon Pro W5500X at 27,973 is closely matched with its rivals. It is 0.2% behind the GeForce GTX 980 Ti (28,020), 0.3% ahead of the Radeon RX 7800M (27,883), 0.5% ahead of the Radeon Pro Vega 20 (27,839), and 0.5% behind the FirePro S7150 (28,117). The tight deltas suggest the W5500X delivers performance consistent with its class, neither dramatically above nor below expectations.

In terms of raw compute throughput, the AMD card has the edge in FP32 performance: 5.398 TFLOPS versus 4.825 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card, a difference of about 11.9%. However, the NVIDIA card counters with higher pixel rate (75.39 GPixel/s versus 56.22 GPixel/s) and more ROPs (64 versus 32), which suggests better fill-rate performance in certain rendering workloads. The texture rates are closer: the AMD card achieves 168.7 GTexel/s versus 150.8 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA card, a 11.9% advantage. These numbers indicate that the AMD card has a theoretical edge in texture-heavy tasks, while the NVIDIA card may handle pixel-heavy operations more efficiently.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is substantial, reflecting their different release eras and design goals. The NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q uses the GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a die size of 398 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X uses the Navi 14 chip based on RDNA 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a much smaller 7 nm node, also at TSMC. It contains 6,400 million transistors on a die size of just 158 mm², achieving a transistor density of 40.5M per mm², more than three times higher.

The core configurations differ significantly. The NVIDIA card has 2,048 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The AMD card has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and only 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the AMD card achieves higher FP32 throughput due to its higher clock speeds: the base clock is 1,187 MHz with a boost of 1,757 MHz, versus 557 MHz base and 1,178 MHz boost for the NVIDIA card. The AMD card also supports FP16 compute at 10.80 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio), while the NVIDIA card has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory architecture presents another major divergence. The GRID M60-1Q uses 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the W5500X uses 8 GB of GDDR6 on a 128-bit bus. The AMD card's memory operates at 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), yielding 224.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 39.7% higher than the NVIDIA card's 160.4 GB/s. This gives the AMD card a clear advantage in memory-heavy workloads, especially at higher resolutions where larger frame buffers are needed.

The power profiles are starkly different. The NVIDIA card draws 225 W TDP and needs a 550 W PSU, while the AMD card draws only 125 W TDP with a 300 W PSU suggestion. The AMD card's power efficiency is remarkable given its higher FP32 throughput and bandwidth. The bus interface also differs: the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the AMD card uses Apple MPX, reflecting its intended Mac Pro ecosystem. The display outputs are another differentiator: the GRID M60-1Q has no outputs, designed for virtualized GPU workloads, whereas the W5500X provides 2x HDMI 2.0b connectors.

The Verdict

The data presents two very different products serving different purposes. The NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q is a virtualization-oriented GPU with no display outputs, built for datacenter or cloud environments where rendering happens off-screen. Its 1 GB memory capacity is minimal by modern standards, but its 76th percentile benchmark ranking and close parity with the Quadro M5000 indicate it remains competitive in its niche. The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X is a workstation card with physical display outputs, designed for professional Mac systems, and its 8 GB frame buffer makes it far more practical for real-world graphics workloads.

For users who need a GPU for virtualized desktop infrastructure or remote rendering, the GRID M60-1Q's higher raw benchmark score and better percentile placement suggest it handles compute tasks well. However, its lack of display outputs and limited memory make it unsuitable for direct workstation use. The W5500X, while scoring lower in its benchmark, offers 8 GB of memory, newer GDDR6 technology, higher bandwidth, and significantly lower power consumption. Its FP32 throughput is also higher, which matters for compute-heavy professional applications.

The verdict depends on the use case. If raw benchmark performance in a virtualized environment is the priority, the GRID M60-1Q has the edge in recorded scores. If a physical workstation GPU with modern memory, display connectivity, and power efficiency is required, the W5500X is the clear choice. The absence of head-to-head benchmarks means the numerical comparison is indirect, but the architectural and specification differences strongly favor the AMD card for most practical graphics deployments today.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category in the database. The NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q uses the GM204 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the AMD Radeon Pro W5500X uses the Navi 14 chip on RDNA 1.0. The process nodes are 28 nm versus 7 nm, respectively. Transistor counts are 5,200 million for NVIDIA and 6,400 million for AMD, with die sizes of 398 mm² versus 158 mm², and transistor densities of 13.1M versus 40.5M per mm².

Clock speeds favor AMD decisively: 1,187 MHz base and 1,757 MHz boost versus 557 MHz base and 1,178 MHz boost for NVIDIA. Memory clocks are 1,750 MHz (14 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. Memory capacity is 8 GB GDDR6 versus 1 GB GDDR5, with bus widths of 128-bit versus 256-bit, and bandwidth of 224.0 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s.

The compute configurations show 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs for AMD, versus 2,048 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 64 ROPs for NVIDIA. Pixel rates are 56.22 GPixel/s for AMD versus 75.39 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, while texture rates are 168.7 GTexel/s versus 150.8 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 5.398 TFLOPS for AMD versus 4.825 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, and AMD additionally offers FP16 at 10.80 TFLOPS.

Power specifications differ sharply: 125 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU for AMD, versus 225 W TDP and 550 W suggested PSU for NVIDIA. The AMD card has no power connectors listed, while the NVIDIA card requires 1x 8-pin. Bus interfaces are Apple MPX for AMD and PCIe 3.0 x16 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are 2x HDMI 2.0b for AMD and none for NVIDIA. Both are dual-slot cards. The NVIDIA card has dimensions of 267 mm (10.5 inches) in length, while AMD dimensions are not recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro W5500X wins in scenarios that demand modern memory and efficiency. Its 8 GB GDDR6 frame buffer with 224.0 GB/s bandwidth supports larger textures and higher resolutions, making it suitable for professional graphics work, video editing, or any task where memory capacity is critical. The 125 W TDP and 300 W PSU requirement make it far easier to integrate into compact or power-constrained systems. Its higher FP32 throughput (5.398 TFLOPS) and FP16 support give it an edge in compute workloads that leverage these capabilities. The presence of HDMI outputs means it can drive displays directly, which is essential for standard workstation use.

The NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q wins in specific virtualized environments. Its higher pixel rate (75.39 GPixel/s) and doubled ROP count (64 versus 32) suggest it processes pixel-heavy operations faster, which benefits certain rendering pipelines. Its 76th percentile ranking versus 73rd for AMD indicates stronger overall performance in its recorded benchmark. The 256-bit memory bus, though paired with slower GDDR5, provides a wider path that may help in certain access patterns. The card's design with no display outputs is intentional for GPU virtualization, where multiple virtual machines share the hardware, and its closer ties to the Quadro M5000 in performance show it remains a viable option for that niche.

For general-purpose GPU computing, the AMD card's higher FP32 and FP16 numbers give it a theoretical edge. For fill-rate-limited tasks, the NVIDIA card's higher pixel rate and more ROPs may be preferable. The AMD card wins on power efficiency, memory capacity, and bandwidth. The NVIDIA card wins on raw recorded benchmark score and percentile placement. Users should choose based on their specific workload: virtualized rendering favors NVIDIA, while direct workstation graphics and power-sensitive deployments favor AMD.