NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The GeForce GT 555M and Quadro P2000 are separated by six years of GPU architecture, and the benchmark data reflects that gap clearly. The GT 555M is a 2011-era Fermi mobile chip, while the P2000 is a 2017 Pascal workstation part. While both are end-of-life products, they serve entirely different performance tiers, and the data shows the P2000 is in a different league for compute workloads, though the GT 555M holds its own in a narrow edge case.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The Quadro P2000 scores 20,125, while the GT 555M manages only 6,493. That is a delta of -67.7% for the older card, meaning the P2000 delivers roughly three times the raw compute performance in this test. This is not a marginal victory; it is a generational stomping. The P2000's OpenCL score places it in a completely different performance class, and any workload leveraging OpenCL will see a massive uplift.

Beyond that single comparison, the broader benchmark suite for the P2000 shows a mixed profile across different DirectX and compute tests. In Passmark DirectX 9, the P2000 scores 124, which is its strongest legacy API result. DirectX 10 drops to 34, DirectX 11 rises to 47, and DirectX 12 falls to 28. This pattern suggests the P2000 is optimized for modern APIs and compute workloads rather than older rasterization paths. The Passmark G3D score is 6,956, and the GPU Compute score is 2,933, indicating that general 3D rendering performance is far stronger than its raw compute score suggests. The G2D score of 626 is modest, reflecting that 2D tasks are not the card's focus.

The GT 555M has no other benchmark entries, so its only data point is that OpenCL score. Its percentile rank among all GPUs is 37, while the P2000 sits at 35. This is counterintuitive given the massive OpenCL gap, but it reflects the fact that the P2000's average benchmark score across all its tests is 6,049, which is lower than its OpenCL peak due to weak DirectX scores. The GT 555M's average is 6,493, which equals its only score. So while the P2000 wins the headline compute test, its overall average is dragged down by poor legacy API performance.

Looking at nearest rivals, the GT 555M's 6,493 OpenCL score is within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (6,476) and 0.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M (6,481). It trails the GeForce GTX 670M (6,513) by 0.3% and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 (6,554) by 0.9%. This places the GT 555M in a tight cluster of mid-range mobile GPUs, all within roughly one percent of each other. The P2000's average of 6,049 sits near the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6,077, -0.5%) and NVIDIA RTX A400 (6,078, -0.5%), while slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon 760M (6,019, 0.5%) and AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6,001, 0.8%). This indicates the P2000's overall average is comparable to entry-level modern GPUs, despite its OpenCL strength.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The GT 555M uses the GF106 chip based on Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The P2000 uses the GP106 chip based on Pascal architecture, also from TSMC but on a 16 nm process. This process shrink is dramatic: the GT 555M packs 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². The P2000 fits 4,400 million transistors on a smaller 200 mm² die, achieving 22.0M per mm². That is over four times the transistor density, which explains the massive performance difference per watt.

The memory subsystems are also vastly different. The GT 555M has 1,024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, running at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective), producing 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 160-bit bus, running at 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), producing 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. That is roughly five times the capacity and nearly five times the bandwidth. The P2000's memory clock is also nearly double in effective speed.

Core counts follow the same trend. The GT 555M has 144 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. That is 7.1 times the shading units, 2.7 times the TMUs, and 2.5 times the ROPs. Pixel rate jumps from 3.540 GPixel/s on the GT 555M to 59.20 GPixel/s on the P2000. Texture rate goes from 14.16 GTexel/s to 94.72 GTexel/s. FP32 compute scales from 339.8 GFLOPS to 3.031 TFLOPS, a nearly nine-fold increase. The P2000 also lists FP16 performance at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the GT 555M has no FP16 data.

Clocks differ as well. The GT 555M has no listed base or boost clock, only memory clock. The P2000 has a base clock of 1,076 MHz and a boost clock of 1,480 MHz. Power consumption also diverges: the GT 555M is rated at 35 W TDP, while the P2000 is 75 W TDP. The P2000 requires a 250 W suggested PSU, while the GT 555M has no such requirement listed. The P2000 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, while the GT 555M has no slot width or connector data. Bus interfaces differ: the GT 555M uses PCIe 2.0 x16, the P2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are portable-device-dependent for the GT 555M, while the P2000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

API support also diverges. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the GT 555M's DirectX 12 is at feature level 11_0, while the P2000 is at 12_1. The P2000 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 555M has no Vulkan support listed. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The GT 555M measures no physical dimensions, while the P2000 is 196 mm long (7.7 inches) and 111 mm tall (4.4 inches).

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion for anyone choosing between these two: the Quadro P2000 is the superior performer in every measurable compute metric, with the sole exception of its average benchmark score being slightly lower than the GT 555M's single score. That average is skewed by the P2000's weak Passmark DirectX results, which are irrelevant for modern compute workloads. The P2000's OpenCL score of 20,125 versus the GT 555M's 6,493 is the definitive comparison — a 67.7% lead that no other metric can offset.

The GT 555M's only advantage is its lower TDP of 35 W versus 75 W, and its smaller physical footprint, though the P2000 is still single-slot. For a builder targeting maximum compute performance in a small workstation, the P2000's 5 GB of GDDR5 memory and 140.2 GB/s bandwidth are decisive. For a legacy laptop upgrade or a low-power embedded application where OpenCL performance is secondary, the GT 555M remains a viable option, but it is strictly inferior in raw capability.

The P2000's Pascal architecture brings modern features like Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1 that the Fermi-based GT 555M cannot match. Its 3.031 TFLOPS FP32 performance is nearly nine times the GT 555M's 339.8 GFLOPS. There is no scenario in the data where the GT 555M wins a benchmark, a feature comparison, or a memory capacity contest. The verdict is straightforward: the P2000 is the professional-grade part, and the GT 555M is a legacy mobile chip that has been surpassed in every way that matters for current software.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification category. The process node drops from 40 nm to 16 nm, and transistor count rises from 1,170 million to 4,400 million. Die size actually shrinks from 238 mm² to 200 mm², while transistor density jumps from 4.9M/mm² to 22.0M/mm². Memory capacity goes from 1,024 MB to 5 GB, type changes from DDR3 to GDDR5, bus width expands from 128-bit to 160-bit, and bandwidth increases from 28.80 GB/s to 140.2 GB/s. Memory clock rises from 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective) to 1,752 MHz (7 Gbps effective).

Shading units increase from 144 to 1,024, TMUs from 24 to 64, and ROPs from 16 to 40. Pixel rate goes from 3.540 GPixel/s to 59.20 GPixel/s, texture rate from 14.16 GTexel/s to 94.72 GTexel/s, and FP32 from 339.8 GFLOPS to 3.031 TFLOPS. The P2000 has FP16 at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64), while the GT 555M has none. TDP rises from 35 W to 75 W, and the P2000 lists a 250 W suggested PSU, while the GT 555M has none. Bus interface moves from PCIe 2.0 x16 to PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs go from portable-device-dependent to 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The P2000 is single-slot with no power connectors, while the GT 555M has no slot data. The P2000 has physical dimensions (196 mm x 111 mm), while the GT 555M has none. DirectX feature level moves from 11_0 to 12_1, and Vulkan support appears only on the P2000 (1.4). Release dates differ: the GT 555M launched in July 2011, the P2000 in February 2017.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the GeForce GT 555M scores 6,493, giving the P2000 a 67.7% lead.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The GT 555M has 1,024 MB of DDR3, while the P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GT 555M provides 28.80 GB/s, while the P2000 provides 140.2 GB/s, a nearly five-fold increase.

Q: Do both cards support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but the GT 555M is at feature level 11_0, while the P2000 is at 12_1. The P2000 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GT 555M has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The GT 555M is rated at 35 W, while the P2000 is rated at 75 W and requires a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The P2000 has 1,024 shading units, compared to 144 on the GT 555M, a 7.1 times difference.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P2000 wins in every compute-oriented scenario. Its FP32 throughput of 3.031 TFLOPS is nearly nine times higher than the GT 555M's 339.8 GFLOPS, making it the clear choice for OpenCL workloads, GPU-accelerated rendering, and any modern DirectX 12 or Vulkan application. Its 5 GB GDDR5 memory with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth is essential for large datasets or high-resolution textures that would exhaust the GT 555M's 1 GB DDR3 buffer. The P2000's 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs also make it suitable for multi-monitor workstation setups, whereas the GT 555M is tied to portable device outputs.

The GeForce GT 555M's only practical win is power efficiency. At 35 W TDP, it draws less than half the P2000's 75 W, making it a better fit for legacy laptops or systems with strict power budgets. It also has no PSU requirement, while the P2000 asks for a 250 W unit. For a builder repurposing an old mobile chip in a low-power embedded project where OpenCL performance is not critical, the GT 555M is the more frugal option. However, it loses on every other metric: memory, compute, API support, and feature set. The data is unambiguous — the P2000 is the professional choice, and the GT 555M is a relic that only makes sense where power draw is the absolute priority.