Quadro T500 Mobile vs FirePro W8000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W8000 with Quadro T500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
W8000 outperforms T500 Mobile by a significant 23% 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 | 486 | 555 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.49 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.48 | 35.29 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Tahiti | TU117 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 14 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 2 December 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,599 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1792 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 1365 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1695 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,313 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 100.8 | 94.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.226 TFLOPS | 3.037 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 448 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 |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 279 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Form factor | full height / full length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 176 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 | 4x DisplayPort, 1x SDI | No outputs |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
| DisplayPort count | 4 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 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 | 40−45
+11.1%
| 36
−11.1%
|
| 1440p | 18−20
+20%
| 15
−20%
|
| 4K | 18−21
+5.9%
| 17
−5.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 39.98 | no data |
| 1440p | 88.83 | no data |
| 4K | 88.83 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how FirePro W8000 and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- FirePro W8000 is 11% faster in 1080p
- FirePro W8000 is 20% faster in 1440p
- FirePro W8000 is 6% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 51 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.18 | 8.25 |
| Recency | 14 June 2012 | 2 December 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 225 Watt | 18 Watt |
FirePro W8000 has a 23.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
T500 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 8 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 1150% lower power consumption.
The FirePro W8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T500 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W8000 is a workstation 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.
