Quadro T500 Mobile vs Radeon 630
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 630 with Quadro T500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T500 Mobile outperforms 630 by a whopping 112% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 765 | 569 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 6.05 | 35.56 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 23 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 13 May 2019 (7 years ago) | 2 December 2020 (5 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 1082 MHz | 1365 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1218 MHz | 1695 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 38.98 | 94.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.247 TFLOPS | 3.037 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 32 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 1024 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 80 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 16−18
−125%
| 36
+125%
|
| 1440p | 7−8
−114%
| 15
+114%
|
| 4K | 8−9
−113%
| 17
+113%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−147%
|
35−40
+147%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−173%
|
30
+173%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−117%
|
50−55
+117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−94.7%
|
35−40
+94.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−150%
|
24−27
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−53.7%
|
80−85
+53.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−147%
|
35−40
+147%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
−85.7%
|
130−140
+85.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−157%
|
90
+157%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−155%
|
28
+155%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
−117%
|
50−55
+117%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−94.7%
|
35−40
+94.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
−150%
|
24−27
+150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
−158%
|
31
+158%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−133%
|
28
+133%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−53.7%
|
80−85
+53.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
−147%
|
35−40
+147%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
−114%
|
75
+114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−145%
|
27
+145%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−94.7%
|
35−40
+94.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−58.3%
|
19
+58.3%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
−104%
|
110−120
+104%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
−117%
|
50−55
+117%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
−113%
|
60−65
+113%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−550%
|
13
+550%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
−103%
|
65−70
+103%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−113%
|
80−85
+113%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−122%
|
20−22
+122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−100%
|
10−11
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−143%
|
16−18
+143%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−112%
|
35−40
+112%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−115%
|
28
+115%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−180%
|
14−16
+180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
1440p
High
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
4K
High
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how Radeon 630 and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T500 Mobile is 125% faster in 1080p
- T500 Mobile is 114% faster in 1440p
- T500 Mobile is 113% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 630 is 14% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the T500 Mobile is 550% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 630 performs better in 1 test (2%)
- T500 Mobile performs better in 39 tests (87%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.91 | 8.27 |
| Recency | 13 May 2019 | 2 December 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 18 Watt |
T500 Mobile has a 112% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 17% more advanced lithography process, and 178% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 630 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 630 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro T500 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
