GPU Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 5500M is decisively faster than the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 in every shared benchmark, but the comparison is not about raw speed alone. The Quadro M2000 holds a significant edge in overall market percentile (56th vs. 54th) despite its lower average score, indicating that its performance profile aligns better with a broader range of workloads. Benchmark results show the RX 5500M leads by 62.3% in OpenCL and 59.4% in Vulkan, yet the M2000’s higher percentile suggests that its consistency and driver optimization for professional tasks matter more than peak compute throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a complete sweep for the AMD Radeon RX 5500M in direct comparisons. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 5500M scores 38,725 against the Quadro M2000’s 14,588, a delta of -62.3% from the AMD card’s perspective (meaning the NVIDIA card is 62.3% slower). The gap narrows slightly in Vulkan, where the RX 5500M posts 35,693 versus the M2000’s 14,475, a 59.4% deficit for the Quadro. These are not marginal differences; they represent a generational leap in compute throughput.

The RX 5500M’s Vulkan advantage is particularly telling. With a 59.4% lead, it demonstrates that the newer RDNA architecture handles modern graphics APIs far more efficiently than Maxwell 2.0. The Quadro M2000’s Vulkan score of 14,475 is within 0.8% of its own OpenCL result, suggesting that its older architecture does not scale well with the lower-level API. The RX 5500M, by contrast, shows a 9.2% drop from OpenCL to Vulkan, indicating better optimization for the newer interface.

When placed against their respective nearest rivals, the two cards tell different stories. The Quadro M2000’s average benchmark score of 14,532 places it 0.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 965M (14,404) and 1% ahead of the Radeon RX Vega 11 (14,385), but 1.1% behind the Radeon RX 5500 XT (14,692). The RX 5500M’s average score of 13,356 is virtually tied with the FirePro M6100 (13,354) and 0.4% behind the Radeon Pro 555 (13,407). This means the RX 5500M’s peak scores are outliers; its average performance is far closer to its peers than its head-to-head wins suggest.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 averages 14,532 across its benchmark suite, while the AMD Radeon RX 5500M averages 13,356. Despite losing both head-to-head tests, the Quadro M2000 holds a 1.6% advantage in average score.

Q: How much faster is the RX 5500M in OpenCL?

A: The RX 5500M scores 38,725 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Quadro M2000’s 14,588, making the AMD card 62.3% faster in that specific test.

Q: Does the Quadro M2000 win any benchmark?

A: No. The data shows zero wins for the Quadro M2000 in the head-to-head comparisons. The RX 5500M wins both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests.

Q: Which card has a better market percentile ranking?

A: The Quadro M2000 ranks in the 56th percentile of all GPUs, while the RX 5500M ranks in the 54th percentile. This is notable because the lower-ranked card wins the direct benchmarks.

Q: What is the closest rival to the Quadro M2000?

A: The GeForce GTX 965M is its closest rival, with an average score of 14,404, just 0.9% behind the Quadro M2000’s 14,532.

Q: What is the closest rival to the RX 5500M?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 matches the RX 5500M exactly, with both scoring an average of 13,354 and 13,356 respectively, a delta of 0%.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 5500M wins unequivocally in raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 38,725 is more than 2.6 times the Quadro M2000’s 14,588, and its Vulkan score of 35,693 is nearly 2.5 times higher. This makes it the clear choice for any workload that relies on GPGPU compute, such as rendering, scientific simulation, or heavy image processing. The RX 5500M also benefits from a 4.632 TFLOPS FP32 rate versus the M2000’s 1.786 TFLOPS, giving it a 2.6x advantage in single-precision math.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 wins in market positioning and consistency. Its 56th percentile ranking against all GPUs is two points higher than the RX 5500M’s 54th, despite the latter’s superior peak performance. This suggests that the M2000’s drivers and architecture deliver more predictable results across a wider range of applications. The M2000 also holds a 0.9% lead over the GTX 965M and a 1% lead over the RX Vega 11, showing it competes well within its own performance tier.

For professional use cases, the M2000’s single-slot design and 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs are advantages the RX 5500M cannot match, as the latter’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The M2000 also requires no external power connectors and has a 75 W TDP, making it easier to integrate into existing workstations.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ most dramatically in memory technology. The Quadro M2000 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 105.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The RX 5500M uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on the same 128-bit bus, but achieves 224.0 GB/s, more than double the bandwidth. Memory clocks also differ: the M2000 runs at 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective), while the RX 5500M runs at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective).

The compute resources are starkly different. The M2000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the RX 5500M has 1,408 shading units, 88 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rates favor the RX 5500M at 52.64 GPixel/s versus 37.22 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 144.8 GTexel/s versus 55.82 GTexel/s. The RX 5500M also supports FP16 compute at 9.265 TFLOPS, a feature the M2000 lacks entirely.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The M2000 has a base clock of 796 MHz and a boost of 1163 MHz, while the RX 5500M operates at 1375 MHz base and 1645 MHz boost, with a game clock of 1448 MHz. Power consumption is higher on the AMD side at 85 W versus 75 W, but the M2000 requires a 250 W suggested PSU while the RX 5500M has no such recommendation.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is profound. The Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.9 million per square millimeter. The RX 5500M uses the Navi 14 chip based on RDNA 1.0, built on a 7 nm process at the same foundry, with 6,400 million transistors on a smaller 158 mm² die, achieving a density of 40.5 million per square millimeter.

The transistor count difference is more than double (6,400 million vs. 2,940 million), and the density is 3.1 times higher on the AMD part. This explains the RX 5500M’s superior compute throughput despite its smaller physical footprint. The M2000 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the RX 5500M uses PCIe 4.0 x8, which provides double the bandwidth per lane.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, but the underlying implementations differ. The M2000 belongs to the Quadro Maxwell generation, with its predecessor being Quadro Kepler and successor Quadro Pascal. The RX 5500M is part of the Navi Mobile (RX 5000M) generation, succeeding Polaris Mobile with no listed successor. The M2000 was released in April 2016 and is end-of-life, while the RX 5500M came in October 2019 and is also end-of-life, but the 3.5-year gap explains the architectural leap.

The Verdict

Choose the AMD Radeon RX 5500M if your priority is absolute compute performance. The 62.3% OpenCL lead and 59.4% Vulkan lead are decisive, and the 224.0 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 105.8 GB/s provides a clear advantage for memory-bound workloads. The RDNA architecture’s FP16 support at 9.265 TFLOPS is a feature the Maxwell-based M2000 cannot offer, making the RX 5500M the better option for modern AI or compute tasks that leverage reduced precision.

Choose the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 if you value professional ecosystem integration and consistent performance across a broad software stack. Its 56th percentile ranking versus the RX 5500M’s 54th indicates better overall compatibility, and its single-slot form factor with 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs is unmatched by the portable-device-dependent RX 5500M. The 75 W TDP with no power connectors makes it simpler to deploy in existing systems, and its 0.9% edge over the GTX 965M shows it remains competitive within its generation.

The verdict is clear for gamers or general users: the RX 5500M is the superior performer. For workstation users who need multi-display output and driver stability, the M2000’s advantages are qualitative rather than quantitative. The data does not support the M2000 on raw speed, but it does support it on market positioning and practical utility. Neither card is a current-generation product, but the RX 5500M offers the better path forward for compute-intensive tasks.