NVIDIA GeForce MX550 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000 Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000 and NVIDIA GeForce MX550 occupy opposite ends of the physical and performance spectrum, despite both carrying NVIDIA branding. The database records show the Quadro M5000 winning both head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with a commanding 44.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a narrower 1.4% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro M5000 also holds a higher percentile rank among all GPUs at 76 versus 72 for the MX550. However, the MX550 is not without its own merits: it achieves a 31.2% higher boost clock, supports PCIe 4.0, and consumes only 25 W compared to the Quadro's 150 W. The data suggests the Quadro M5000 is the clear choice for compute-heavy, stationary workloads where raw throughput matters and power draw is secondary. The MX550, with its integrated form factor and portable-device-dependent outputs, is positioned for thin-and-light notebooks where space and thermal limits dominate. Users who need maximum OpenCL throughput should select the Quadro M5000, while those who prioritize efficiency and modern bus connectivity in a mobile chassis should consider the MX550, accepting its substantially lower raw performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The Quadro M5000 uses the GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The MX550 uses the TU117SB chip based on Turing architecture, also fabricated at TSMC but on a 12 nm process. This process difference is significant: the MX550 packs 4,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M per mm², while the Quadro M5000 contains 5,200 million transistors across a 398 mm² die, resulting in a density of 13.1M per mm². The MX550's newer process allows for nearly doubled transistor density, but the Quadro M5000 still has more total transistors.

The memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The Quadro M5000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus width, delivering 211.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX550 uses 2 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s. Despite the MX550's faster memory type (GDDR6 versus GDDR5), the Quadro M5000's wider bus gives it more than double the memory bandwidth. The Quadro M5000 also has double the shading units (2048 versus 1024), four times the texture mapping units (128 versus 32), and four times the raster output pipelines (64 versus 16). These architectural disparities explain the large performance gap in compute-oriented tests.

Clock behavior reveals a different story. The MX550 runs at a 1065 MHz base and 1320 MHz boost, while the Quadro M5000 runs at 861 MHz base and 1038 MHz boost. The MX550's clocks are notably higher, which partially compensates for its smaller execution resources. Both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so API compatibility is identical. Neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate or omit those features. The MX550 does list FP16 performance at 2.703 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32), while the Quadro M5000 lists no FP16 figure in the database, suggesting the Maxwell architecture may not have dedicated FP16 throughput at the same level.

The bus interfaces differ as well: the Quadro M5000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the MX550 uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The MX550's newer PCIe generation provides higher per-lane bandwidth, though the Quadro's x16 connection in the older standard still offers substantial throughput. Power delivery also contrasts sharply: the Quadro M5000 requires a 6-pin power connector and a 450 W suggested PSU, while the MX550 has no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed, consistent with its integrated form factor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two benchmark comparisons between these GPUs, and the Quadro M5000 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M5000 scores 29481 against the MX550's 20372, a delta of 44.7%. This is a substantial margin that aligns with the Quadro's larger execution resources: 2048 shading units versus 1024, 128 TMUs versus 32, and 64 ROPs versus 16. The OpenCL workload appears to scale strongly with raw compute resources, and the Quadro's 4.252 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the MX550's 2.703 TFLOPS explains the gap. The Quadro also benefits from 8 GB of memory versus 2 GB, which may allow larger working sets in OpenCL compute tasks without spilling.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows dramatically. The Quadro M5000 scores 32931 against the MX550's 32469, a delta of only 1.4%. This near-parity is remarkable given the hardware differences. The MX550's higher clocks (1320 MHz boost versus 1038 MHz) and newer Turing architecture likely contribute to its competitive Vulkan showing, as do the modern memory subsystem features of GDDR6. The Vulkan test may be more sensitive to driver optimization and architectural efficiency than to raw resource counts, and the MX550's 1:1 FP16 ratio could help in workloads that use half-precision paths. Still, the Quadro M5000 edges out the win, and its average benchmark score of 31206 across both tests exceeds the MX550's 26421 by 18.1%.

The MX550's closest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon 860M (average score 26401, delta 0.1%) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 (26331, delta 0.3%), placing it in a cluster of mid-range performers. The Quadro M5000's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q (31220, delta 0%) and the NVIDIA TITAN RTX (31676, delta -1.5%), showing it competes at a much higher performance tier. The Quadro M5000 also sits near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER (31087, delta 0.4%) and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 4500 Blackwell (31532, delta -1%), which is impressive for a GPU released earlier.

Specification Differences

The recorded specifications highlight several areas where these two GPUs diverge. The process node differs: 28 nm for the Quadro M5000 versus 12 nm for the MX550. Transistor counts are 5,200 million versus 4,700 million, with die sizes of 398 mm² versus 200 mm². The transistor density is 13.1M per mm² for the Quadro and 23.5M per mm² for the MX550. Base clocks differ: 861 MHz versus 1065 MHz. Boost clocks differ: 1038 MHz versus 1320 MHz. Memory clocks show 1653 MHz with 6.6 Gbps effective for the Quadro, versus 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective for the MX550. Memory size is 8 GB versus 2 GB, type is GDDR5 versus GDDR6, bus width is 256-bit versus 64-bit, and bandwidth is 211.6 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s.

Shading units number 2048 versus 1024, TMUs 128 versus 32, and ROPs 64 versus 16. Pixel rates are 66.43 GPixel/s versus 21.12 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 132.9 GTexel/s versus 42.24 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 4.252 TFLOPS versus 2.703 TFLOPS. The TDP is 150 W versus 25 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus integrated (IGP). Power connectors are 1x 6-pin versus none, and the suggested PSU is 450 W versus none listed. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 for the Quadro, versus portable-device-dependent for the MX550. Dimensions list 267 mm length and 111 mm height for the Quadro, with no dimensions recorded for the MX550. Release dates are June 2015 for the Quadro and December 2021 for the MX550. The Quadro has a predecessor (Quadro Kepler) and successor (Quadro Pascal) in the database, while the MX550 has neither listed. Both are marked end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000, with an average score of 31206 across Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, compared to the MX550's 26421.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro M5000 leads by 44.7% in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 29481 versus 20372.

Q: Is the MX550 competitive in Vulkan workloads?

A: Yes, the MX550 scores 32469 in Geekbench Vulkan, only 1.4% behind the Quadro M5000's 32931, despite having half the shading units and a quarter of the ROPs.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M5000 delivers 211.6 GB/s over a 256-bit GDDR5 bus, while the MX550 provides 96.00 GB/s over a 64-bit GDDR6 bus.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Quadro M5000 has a 150 W TDP and requires a 6-pin power connector plus a 450 W suggested PSU, while the MX550 has a 25 W TDP with no power connectors.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, though the MX550 also lists FP16 performance at 2.703 TFLOPS (1:1), which the Quadro does not specify.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M5000 wins in raw compute throughput. Its 44.7% OpenCL advantage over the MX550 comes from having twice the shading units, four times the TMUs and ROPs, and 4.252 TFLOPS versus 2.703 TFLOPS FP32. Its 211.6 GB/s memory bandwidth and 8 GB capacity make it suitable for large datasets, and its 66.43 GPixel/s pixel rate and 132.9 GTexel/s texture rate dominate the MX550's 21.12 GPixel/s and 42.24 GTexel/s. The dual-slot form factor, 1x DVI and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, and 267 mm length indicate a stationary workstation card built for sustained rendering or compute. The Quadro M5000 also wins in Vulkan, albeit narrowly, and its average score of 31206 places it near the NVIDIA GRID M60-1Q and NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER, showing it still competes with much newer hardware.

The MX550 wins in efficiency and portability. Its 25 W TDP versus 150 W means dramatically lower power draw and heat generation, making it viable for integrated notebook designs. Its 12 nm process and 23.5M per mm² transistor density show a modern manufacturing approach that achieves respectable performance in a small package. Its 1320 MHz boost clock is 27.2% higher than the Quadro's 1038 MHz, and its PCIe 4.0 x8 interface offers newer bus technology. The MX550's 1:1 FP16 ratio could benefit workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic. In Vulkan, the MX550 comes within 1.4% of the Quadro M5000, demonstrating that its architecture is well-optimized for modern graphics APIs. Its 32469 Vulkan score is close to the Quadro's 32931, making the MX550 a surprisingly capable Vulkan performer for its class.

For users choosing between the two based on the data, the decision hinges on whether the workload is OpenCL-heavy or Vulkan-centric. OpenCL-heavy tasks strongly favor the Quadro M5000 by a wide margin, while Vulkan workloads show the two GPUs as near equals. Power-constrained mobile systems have only one viable option in the MX550, while desktop workstations with room for a dual-slot, 267 mm card can accommodate the Quadro M5000. The Quadro M5000's end-of-life status and 2015 release date mean it lacks newer features like PCIe 4.0, but its benchmark scores remain competitive with the MX550's 2021 release. The MX550's lack of a predecessor and successor in the database suggests it may be a standalone product, while the Quadro M5000 has a clear lineage from Quadro Kepler through Quadro Pascal. Ultimately, the Quadro M5000's two wins out of two head-to-head comparisons make it the performance leader in this pairing.