Quadro P500 vs FirePro M2000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M2000 and Quadro P500, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
P500 outperforms M2000 by a whopping 288% 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 | 1103 | 700 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.26 | 16.12 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Turks | GP108 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 July 2012 (12 years ago) | 5 January 2018 (7 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 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1455 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1518 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 24.29 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 0.7772 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| 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 | large |
| Bus support | n/a | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Form factor | chip-down | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 40.1 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 | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 6.1 |
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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
−233%
| 30−35
+233%
|
| Full HD | 16
−25%
| 20
+25%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 14 |
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2200%
|
21−24
+2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−217%
|
18−20
+217%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−68.8%
|
50−55
+68.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−184%
|
70−75
+184%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−227%
|
49
+227%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 12 |
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2200%
|
21−24
+2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−217%
|
18−20
+217%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−133%
|
14
+133%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−68.8%
|
50−55
+68.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−200%
|
45
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 8 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−217%
|
18−20
+217%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−68.8%
|
50−55
+68.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2200%
|
21−24
+2200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−400%
|
30−33
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−191%
|
30−35
+191%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−4200%
|
40−45
+4200%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−300%
|
20−22
+300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how FirePro M2000 and Quadro P500 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P500 is 233% faster in 900p
- Quadro P500 is 25% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro P500 is 4200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P500 is ahead in 40 tests (77%)
- there's a draw in 12 tests (23%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.02 | 3.96 |
| Recency | 1 July 2012 | 5 January 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 18 Watt |
Quadro P500 has a 288.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 83.3% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P500 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M2000 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
