GPU Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 550X and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The RX 550X is a Polaris-generation part aimed at consumer workloads, while the M2000M is a Maxwell-based professional GPU. Benchmark data shows a split decision: the NVIDIA card wins the OpenCL test, while the AMD card dominates in Vulkan. This analysis breaks down the measurable differences to help determine which legacy GPU fits specific use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their two benchmark comparisons exactly, with each taking one decisive victory. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 10057 against the AMD Radeon RX 550X's 9662, giving NVIDIA a 3.9% advantage. This is a modest but clear win for the professional card, which aligns with its workstation-oriented driver optimizations. The delta is small enough that real-world OpenCL applications might show variable results, but the data consistently favors NVIDIA in this API.

The Vulkan results tell a completely different story. Here, the AMD Radeon RX 550X scores 11299, while the Quadro M2000M trails at 9606. That is a 17.6% margin in AMD's favor, a substantial gap that dwarfs NVIDIA's OpenCL lead. The RX 550X's Vulkan score is not just higher than its rival; it is also significantly higher than its own OpenCL result (11299 vs 9662), suggesting the GCN architecture scales particularly well with modern low-level APIs. The M2000M, by contrast, actually performs worse in Vulkan (9606) than in OpenCL (10057), indicating its Maxwell architecture struggles to extract performance from this newer API.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the AMD card's average benchmark score of 10481 places it in the 49th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (avg score 10362, 1.2% behind) and the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (avg score 10400, 0.8% behind). The NVIDIA card's average score of 9832 sits at the 47th percentile, with its closest competitor being the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (avg score 9846, only 0.1% difference). The data shows both cards are mid-pack performers, but the AMD card holds a 6.2% overall average score advantage (10481 vs 9832). This aggregate edge comes entirely from the Vulkan result, as the OpenCL scores are relatively close.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X averages 10481 across benchmark tests, compared to 9832 for the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M. This places the AMD card in the 49th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA card sits at the 47th percentile.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X scores 11299 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 17.6% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M's score of 9606. The AMD card wins this test decisively, while the NVIDIA card's Vulkan score is actually lower than its OpenCL score.

Q: Is the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M better at any workload?

A: Yes, the Quadro M2000M wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark with a score of 10057, beating the RX 550X's 9662 by 3.9%. For applications that rely on OpenCL acceleration, the NVIDIA card holds a measurable edge.

Q: What are the closest rivals to these GPUs?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M275X (avg score 10582, 1% higher), followed by the AMD Radeon RX 6600S (avg score 10629, 1.4% higher). The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (avg score 9846, 0.1% higher), with the AMD FirePro W5000 (avg score 9803) just 0.3% lower.

Q: Which GPU has better driver and API support?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. While NVIDIA supports a newer Vulkan version, the benchmark data shows AMD achieving far better Vulkan performance.

Q: What is the transistor and die size difference?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550X uses 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die (21.4M transistors per mm²), while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die (12.6M transistors per mm²). AMD's chip is significantly denser despite having fewer total transistors.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial and explains most of the benchmark divergence. The AMD Radeon RX 550X is built on GCN 4.0 architecture using a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, representing the Polaris generation (RX 500X). It packs 2,200 million transistors into a compact 103 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 21.4M per mm². The chip is codenamed Lexa and supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M uses the older Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a significantly less dense design: 1,870 million transistors spread across 148 mm², yielding only 12.6M transistors per mm². The chip is GM107 and belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. It supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, a newer Vulkan version than AMD, yet the benchmark results show it performing worse in Vulkan.

Compute resources differ in interesting ways. The NVIDIA card has more shading units (640 vs 512) and more texture mapping units (40 vs 32), giving it a higher theoretical texture rate of 45.48 GTexel/s compared to 37.86 GTexel/s for AMD. Both have 16 ROPs. However, the AMD card achieves a slightly higher pixel rate at 18.93 GPixel/s versus 18.19 GPixel/s. In raw FP32 compute, NVIDIA leads with 1,455.4 GFLOPS against AMD's 1,211.4 GFLOPS. The AMD card also supports FP16 at 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the NVIDIA card has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory configurations are similar on paper but differ in bandwidth. Both have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The AMD card runs memory at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for 80.19 GB/s. The RX 550X's 19.7% memory bandwidth advantage is notable for texture-heavy workloads, though the M2000M's higher texture rate partially compensates.

Power and physical specifications also diverge. The AMD card has a 50 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the NVIDIA card has a 55 W TDP with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The AMD card is a dual-slot design measuring 145 mm (5.7 inches) with 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The NVIDIA card uses an MXM Module form factor with MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent."

The Verdict

The data presents a clear use-case split. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is the better choice for OpenCL-based professional applications, where its 3.9% benchmark advantage (10057 vs 9662) provides a measurable benefit. Its Maxwell architecture also offers higher raw FP32 compute (1,455.4 GFLOPS) and more shading units (640), which can translate to better performance in compute-heavy tasks that don't leverage modern low-level APIs.

The AMD Radeon RX 550X is the superior option for Vulkan-centric workloads, with a commanding 17.6% lead (11299 vs 9606). Its newer 14 nm process, higher transistor density, and 96.00 GB/s memory bandwidth give it an edge in modern gaming and Vulkan-based applications. The average benchmark score also favors AMD (10481 vs 9832), and the higher percentile ranking (49th vs 47th) confirms the overall performance advantage.

For users deciding between these two end-of-life GPUs, the decision hinges on software compatibility. If your applications rely on OpenCL, the Quadro M2000M's professional pedigree and driver optimization make it the safer bet. If you're running Vulkan titles or modern games, the RX 550X's substantial Vulkan advantage is impossible to ignore. Neither card is a top performer by today's standards, both sit near the 50th percentile, but each has a clear domain where it excels.

Specification Differences

Process Node: AMD Radeon RX 550X uses 14 nm (GlobalFoundries); NVIDIA Quadro M2000M uses 28 nm (TSMC).

Transistors: AMD has 2,200 million; NVIDIA has 1,870 million.

Die Size: AMD is 103 mm²; NVIDIA is 148 mm².

Transistor Density: AMD achieves 21.4M / mm²; NVIDIA achieves 12.6M / mm².

Base Clock: AMD runs at 1100 MHz; NVIDIA runs at 1098 MHz.

Boost Clock: AMD boosts to 1183 MHz; NVIDIA boosts to 1137 MHz.

Memory Clock: AMD runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective); NVIDIA runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory Bandwidth: AMD provides 96.00 GB/s; NVIDIA provides 80.19 GB/s.

Shading Units: AMD has 512; NVIDIA has 640.

TMUs: AMD has 32; NVIDIA has 40.

Pixel Rate: AMD achieves 18.93 GPixel/s; NVIDIA achieves 18.19 GPixel/s.

Texture Rate: AMD achieves 37.86 GTexel/s; NVIDIA achieves 45.48 GTexel/s.

FP32 Compute: AMD delivers 1,211.4 GFLOPS; NVIDIA delivers 1,455.4 GFLOPS.

FP16 Compute: AMD delivers 1,211.4 GFLOPS (1:1); NVIDIA has no listed FP16 support.

TDP: AMD is rated at 50 W; NVIDIA is rated at 55 W.

Slot Width: AMD is dual-slot; NVIDIA is MXM Module.

Bus Interface: AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8; NVIDIA uses MXM-A (3.0).

Display Outputs: AMD has 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a; NVIDIA is "Portable Device Dependent."

Vulkan Support: AMD supports Vulkan 1.3; NVIDIA supports Vulkan 1.4.

DirectX Support: AMD supports 12 (12_0); NVIDIA supports 12 (11_0).

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon RX 550X wins in: Vulkan performance (17.6% lead in Geekbench Vulkan), average benchmark score (10481 vs 9832), memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 80.19 GB/s), pixel rate (18.93 GPixel/s), transistor density (21.4M / mm²), process node (14 nm vs 28 nm), FP16 compute support, and overall GPU percentile ranking (49th vs 47th).

NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins in: OpenCL performance (3.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL), shading units (640 vs 512), texture mapping units (40 vs 32), texture rate (45.48 GTexel/s), FP32 compute (1,455.4 GFLOPS), and Vulkan API version support (1.4 vs 1.3).

The practical takeaway: choose the AMD Radeon RX 550X for Vulkan-based gaming and modern API workloads, where its performance is decisively better. Choose the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M for OpenCL-centric professional applications, where its compute advantage and texture throughput provide a measurable edge. Both cards are end-of-life products, so driver support and software compatibility should be verified before purchase.