Quadro K500M vs FirePro M2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M2000 and Quadro K500M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
K500M outperforms M2000 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1085 | 1040 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.32 | 2.46 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Turks | GK107 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 July 2012 (12 years ago) | 1 June 2012 (12 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 480 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 13.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 0.3264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 16 |
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 | medium sized | medium sized |
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Form factor | chip-down | 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
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:
| 900p | 9
−11.1%
| 10−12
+11.1%
|
| Full HD | 14
+0%
| 14−16
+0%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Elden Ring | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how FirePro M2000 and Quadro K500M compete in popular games:
- Quadro K500M is 11% faster in 900p
- A tie in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro K500M is 25% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro K500M is ahead in 7 tests (20%)
- there's a draw in 28 tests (80%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.11 | 1.25 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 35 Watt |
FirePro M2000 has 6.1% lower power consumption.
Quadro K500M, on the other hand, has a 12.6% higher aggregate performance score, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro K500M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M2000 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
