AMD Radeon RX 550 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

The benchmark data positions the AMD Radeon RX 550 as the clear performance leader over the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M in the two shared tests, with its advantages ranging from a solid 10% margin to a decisive 27.7% lead. The RX 550 achieves a higher average benchmark score and a better overall percentile ranking, indicating that for general compute workloads, it is the more capable part despite the Quadro’s larger memory allocation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmarks with results for both cards are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the AMD Radeon RX 550 wins both. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RX 550 scores 11,063 against the Quadro M2000M’s 10,057, a 10% advantage. This margin is significant, showing that the AMD card delivers more raw compute throughput in a cross-platform API that is heavily used for general-purpose GPU tasks. The RX 550 also wins Geekbench Vulkan by a much larger margin: 12,270 versus 9,606, a 27.7% lead. This substantial gap in Vulkan suggests that the GCN 4.0 architecture handles modern, low-level graphics APIs far more efficiently than the older Maxwell design.

The aggregate data reinforces this dominance. The RX 550’s average benchmark score is 11,075, while the Quadro M2000M averages 9,832. This places the RX 550 in the 50th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the Quadro’s 47th percentile. While a three-percentile difference may seem modest, the relative positioning against their nearest rivals puts the performance gap into context. The RX 550’s closest competitor, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, scores 11,088, which is only 0.1% higher, meaning the RX 550 is essentially trading blows with a far more modern workstation card. On the other hand, the Quadro M2000M’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro 6000, scores 9,846, just 0.1% higher, and the AMD FirePro W5000 is only 0.3% behind it. The data shows a clear hierarchy: the RX 550 sits in a performance tier that is roughly 11% higher than the Quadro M2000M’s tier.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design generations. The AMD Radeon RX 550 is built on the GCN 4.0 architecture, using the Lexa chip fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M uses the older Maxwell architecture, with the GM107 chip produced on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process node difference is a major factor in the performance and efficiency gap. The RX 550 packs 2,200 million transistors onto a 103 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the Quadro M2000M has 1,870 million transistors on a much larger 148 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The smaller, denser die on the RX 550 indicates a more modern manufacturing process that allows for higher clock speeds and better power efficiency.

The memory subsystems also differ significantly. The RX 550 features 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering a bandwidth of 112.0 GB/s. The Quadro M2000M offers double the capacity at 4 GB, but its 128-bit bus and slower memory clock result in only 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a critical distinction: the Quadro has more memory, which is useful for holding larger datasets, but it moves data much slower. The RX 550’s memory clock is listed at 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the Quadro runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The RX 550’s higher bandwidth is a direct contributor to its superior benchmark scores.

The compute units differ as well. The RX 550 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The Quadro M2000M has more shading units (640) and texture units (40), but the same 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders, the RX 550 achieves a higher pixel rate of 18.93 GPixel/s versus 18.19 GPixel/s on the Quadro. The texture rate goes the other way: the Quadro’s 45.48 GTexel/s beats the RX 550’s 37.86 GTexel/s. In terms of raw FP32 compute, the Quadro’s 1,455.4 GFLOPS is higher than the RX 550’s 1,211.4 GFLOPS. However, the benchmark results show the RX 550 winning decisively, suggesting that the architectural efficiency of GCN 4.0 and the higher memory bandwidth outweigh the Quadro’s theoretical compute advantage in real-world OpenCL and Vulkan workloads.

The feature sets reflect their respective release dates. The RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The Quadro M2000M also supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, but its DirectX support is limited to 12 (11_0), which is a lower feature level. The RX 550 has a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the Quadro M2000M has a slightly higher 55 W TDP and also requires no external power. The RX 550 is a dual-slot PCIe 3.0 x8 card with standard display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a), whereas the Quadro M2000M is an MXM-A (3.0) module designed for laptops, with display outputs that are portable device dependent.

The Verdict

The data is unequivocal: the AMD Radeon RX 550 is the faster GPU. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score, and a better percentile ranking. For anyone comparing these two for general compute or modern gaming APIs, the RX 550 is the superior choice. Its 27.7% lead in Vulkan is especially telling, as that API is increasingly relevant for new games and professional applications. The Quadro M2000M’s only advantage is its 4 GB memory capacity, which could be a factor if a workload requires a larger framebuffer or dataset to reside on the GPU. However, the substantial bandwidth deficit (80.19 GB/s vs 112.0 GB/s) means that even with more memory, the Quadro will likely bottleneck on data transfer.

The Quadro M2000M is a legacy mobile part from 2015, while the RX 550 is a desktop card from 2017. The RX 550’s GCN 4.0 architecture and 14 nm process give it a fundamental efficiency and performance edge. The Quadro’s higher shader count and FP32 throughput do not translate into real-world wins in the tested benchmarks. The verdict is that the RX 550 is the better-performing graphics processor, and the Quadro M2000M would only be considered if the 4 GB memory capacity is an absolute requirement and the lower bandwidth is acceptable.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 11,075, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M’s 9,832.

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon RX 550 in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The RX 550 scores 12,270 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 27.7% higher than the Quadro M2000M’s score of 9,606.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M have any memory capacity advantage?

A: Yes, the Quadro M2000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, which is double the 2 GB found on the AMD Radeon RX 550. However, the RX 550 has much higher memory bandwidth at 112.0 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s.

Q: What are the process nodes for these two cards?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 is built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 has a slightly higher pixel rate of 18.93 GPixel/s, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M’s 18.19 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the DirectX feature level supported by each card?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 550 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M supports a lower feature level of DirectX 12 (11_0).

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 550 wins in the two categories that matter most for performance: compute throughput and modern API support. It is the clear winner in Geekbench OpenCL, where its 10% lead shows better general-purpose compute capability. It is an even more decisive winner in Geekbench Vulkan, with a 27.7% margin that points to superior driver optimization and architectural efficiency for low-level graphics. The RX 550 also wins on memory bandwidth, offering 112.0 GB/s compared to the Quadro’s 80.19 GB/s, which is a critical advantage for texture-heavy workloads. Its smaller die and more advanced 14 nm process also give it a transistor density advantage, suggesting better power efficiency per unit of performance.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has a few specific areas where it is not entirely outclassed. Its 4 GB memory capacity is double that of the RX 550, which provides a tangible benefit for workloads that require a larger framebuffer, such as high-resolution displays or complex compute datasets that exceed 2 GB. It also has a higher texture rate (45.48 GTexel/s vs 37.86 GTexel/s) and a higher FP32 compute rating (1,455.4 GFLOPS vs 1,211.4 GFLOPS), indicating that in purely theoretical, shader-bound scenarios without memory constraints, it could potentially outperform the RX 550. Additionally, the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer API version than the RX 550’s Vulkan 1.3, and its MXM form factor makes it suitable for specific mobile workstation upgrades.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 550 | NVIDIA Quadro M2000M |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 2,200 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 103 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 21.4M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1100 MHz | 1098 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1183 MHz | 1137 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 640 |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.93 GPixel/s | 18.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 37.86 GTexel/s | 45.48 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,211.4 GFLOPS | 1,455.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.3 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2017-04-19 | 2015-12-02 |