AMD Radeon 550X vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and AMD Radeon 550X sit at opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, separated by architecture generation, memory capacity, and compute resources. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, but the Radeon 550X still serves a distinct purpose in low-power systems. This analysis walks through the head-to-head results, architectural differences, and practical implications based solely on the provided facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available shared benchmarks — Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan — reveal a complete sweep for the NVIDIA Quadro P4000. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 against the Radeon 550X’s 8,866, a delta of 308.4%. That is not a marginal win; the Quadro P4000 delivers more than four times the raw compute throughput in this test. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: 41,786 versus 8,970, a 365.8% advantage. Both deltas are so large that they define the entire comparison — the Radeon 550X is not competitive in any measured workload.

Looking at average benchmark scores reinforces the gap. The Quadro P4000’s average across all recorded tests is 9,665, while the Radeon 550X averages 8,918. Interestingly, the Quadro P4000’s nearest rivals cluster tightly around its average: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 sits at 9,653 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M at 9,645 (0.2% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 at 9,637 (0.3% behind). The Radeon 550X’s rivals are similarly close to its own average: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 at 8,863 (0.6% ahead), the AMD Radeon R9 M265X at 8,851 (0.8% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 at 9,022 (1.2% ahead). This clustering suggests both cards perform exactly where their hardware specifications imply — the Quadro P4000 is a mid-tier workstation part, while the Radeon 550X is an entry-level mobile or small-form-factor option.

The percentile rankings confirm the separation: the Quadro P4000 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, the Radeon 550X at the 45th. Despite the massive head-to-head deltas, both cards are statistically near the middle of the performance distribution. That is because the Radeon 550X’s limited benchmark set — only two tests — pulls its average down, but its percentile still reflects a functional, if modest, GPU. For the Quadro P4000, the 308–366% lead in shared tests is the single most important data point; no other metric in the pack contradicts it.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies and manufacturing nodes. The Quadro P4000 uses NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, built on a 16 nm TSMC process. The chip, codenamed GP104, packs 7,200 million transistors onto a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9 million per square millimeter. The Radeon 550X, by contrast, uses AMD’s GCN 4.0 architecture (from the Polaris generation), fabricated on a 14 nm GlobalFoundries process. Its Lexa chip contains 2,200 million transistors on a 103 mm² die, with a density of 21.4 million per square millimeter. The node difference is small — 16 nm versus 14 nm — but the transistor budget is not: the Quadro P4000 has over three times as many transistors.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The Quadro P4000 features 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The Radeon 550X has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is a 3.5:1 ratio in shading units, 3.5:1 in TMUs, and 4:1 in ROPs. Consequently, peak fill rates differ enormously: the Quadro P4000 achieves 94.72 GPixel/s and 165.8 GTexel/s, while the Radeon 550X manages 19.49 GPixel/s and 38.98 GTexel/s. FP32 compute tells the same story: 5.304 TFLOPS for the Quadro P4000 versus 1,247.2 GFLOPS (1.247 TFLOPS) for the Radeon 550X. A notable asymmetry appears in FP16: the Quadro P4000 delivers only 82.88 GFLOPS at a 1:64 ratio to FP32, while the Radeon 550X provides 1,247.2 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. This means the Radeon 550X handles half-precision workloads far more efficiently relative to its own FP32, though its absolute FP16 output remains below the Quadro P4000’s FP32.

Memory subsystems also differ fundamentally. The Quadro P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 243.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 550X has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 112.0 GB/s. Clock speeds favor the Quadro P4000 as well: base 1202 MHz, boost 1480 MHz, and memory at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective), versus the Radeon 550X’s 1082 MHz base, 1218 MHz boost, and 1750 MHz memory (7 Gbps effective). API support is nearly identical — both support DirectX 12 (the Quadro at 12_1, the Radeon at 12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan (1.4 for the Quadro, 1.3 for the Radeon). Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 has 1,792 shading units, while the AMD Radeon 550X has 512 — a 3.5x difference.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of each card?

A: The Quadro P4000 reaches 243.3 GB/s over a 256-bit bus with 8 GB GDDR5. The Radeon 550X offers 112.0 GB/s over a 128-bit bus with 2 GB GDDR5.

Q: How does FP16 performance compare?

A: The Quadro P4000 provides 82.88 GFLOPS at a 1:64 FP16:FP32 ratio, while the Radeon 550X provides 1,247.2 GFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio. The Radeon 550X has full-rate half-precision, but its absolute FP32 is far lower.

Q: What is the power draw of each card?

A: The Quadro P4000 has a TDP of 105 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The Radeon 550X has a TDP of 50 W, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The Quadro P4000 ranks at the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 550X ranks at the 45th.

Q: What is the production status of both cards?

A: Both are end-of-life. The Quadro P4000 released on February 5, 2017, and the Radeon 550X released on March 26, 2019.

The Verdict

The data leaves no ambiguity: the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins every shared benchmark by a wide margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, it leads by 308.4%; in Vulkan, by 365.8%. The architecture supports this dominance — Pascal’s GP104 chip has 1,792 shading units versus 512, 64 ROPs versus 16, and 243.3 GB/s bandwidth versus 112.0 GB/s. The Radeon 550X is not a competitor in any compute or graphics workload measured here.

However, the Radeon 550X is not without justification. Its 50 W TDP, lack of power connectors, and compact 145 mm length make it suitable for systems where power and space are constrained. The Quadro P4000, at 105 W with a 6-pin connector and 241 mm length, requires a more substantial chassis and power supply. For users who need maximum performance, the Quadro P4000 is the clear choice — its average benchmark score of 9,665 is 8.4% higher than the Radeon 550X’s 8,918, and its head-to-head deltas are overwhelming. For users who only need basic display output or light compute in a low-power embedded system, the Radeon 550X’s efficiency profile is defensible, but the performance sacrifice is massive.

The verdict is straightforward: pick the Quadro P4000 for any performance-sensitive task, and pick the Radeon 550X only when power draw and physical footprint trump all other considerations.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 | AMD Radeon 550X |

|-------|---------------------|-----------------|

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 4.0 |

| Process Node | 16 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | GlobalFoundries |

| Transistors | 7,200 million | 2,200 million |

| Die Size | 314 mm² | 103 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 22.9M / mm² | 21.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1202 MHz | 1082 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1480 MHz | 1218 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) | 1750 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 243.3 GB/s | 112.0 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1792 | 512 |

| TMUs | 112 | 32 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 94.72 GPixel/s | 19.49 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 165.8 GTexel/s | 38.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 5.304 TFLOPS | 1,247.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64) | 1,247.2 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 105 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0b, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Length | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 145 mm (5.7 inches) |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | — |

| Release Date | 2017-02-05 | 2019-03-26 |

| Launch MSRP | 815 USD | — |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins every measured performance category. It dominates Geekbench OpenCL (36,212 vs 8,866) and Vulkan (41,786 vs 8,970). Its advantage extends to raw throughput: 5.304 TFLOPS FP32, 94.72 GPixel/s pixel fill, and 165.8 GTexel/s texture fill. For multi-monitor workstation setups, its four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface provide more connectivity and bandwidth. The 8 GB memory capacity and 243.3 GB/s bandwidth make it viable for larger datasets in professional applications.

The AMD Radeon 550X wins on power efficiency and physical footprint. Its 50 W TDP is less than half the Quadro P4000’s 105 W, and it requires no auxiliary power connector. At 145 mm, it is roughly 96 mm shorter than the Quadro P4000, fitting into compact or low-profile systems. Its 14 nm process node is slightly newer, and its 1:1 FP16 ratio means half-precision compute runs at full speed relative to FP32 — a niche advantage for specific workloads that tolerate reduced precision. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and single DisplayPort, HDMI, and DVI outputs indicate a simpler display configuration, but that also reduces power and complexity.

The use-case split is clear: the Quadro P4000 is for professional 3D rendering, CAD, video editing, or any GPU-accelerated task where performance is paramount. The Radeon 550X is for basic display, light 2D workloads, or embedded systems where the 50 W TDP and small size are non-negotiable constraints. The benchmark data gives no reason to choose the Radeon 550X for performance; it wins only on the physical and electrical characteristics that the Quadro P4000 cannot match.