Quadro T500 Mobile vs GRID K160Q

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
K1 K100 K120Q K140Q K160Q K340 NVS 510 Quadro 410 Quadro K420 Quadro K600 Quadro K2000 Quadro K2000D
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
T400 Mobile T500 Mobile T600 Mobile T1000 Mobile T1000 Max-Q T1200 Max-Q T1200 Mobile T2000 Mobile T2000 Max-Q T500 Max-Q T550 Mobile T600 Max-Q

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GRID K160Q with Quadro T500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

GRID K160Q
2013, $125
1 GB DDR3, 130 Watt
1.49

T500 Mobile outperforms K160Q by a whopping 451% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
GRID K160Q GRID K160Q
T500 Mobile T500 Mobile

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1016548
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.13no data
Power efficiency0.8835.18
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGK107TU117
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date28 June 2013 (12 years ago)2 December 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$125 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores192896
Core clock speed850 MHz1365 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1695 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate13.6094.92
Floating-point processing power0.3264 TFLOPS3.037 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs1656
L1 Cache16 KB896 KB
L2 Cache256 KB1024 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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
WidthIGPno 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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed891 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.51 GB/s80 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.2
CUDA3.07.5

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 HD6−7
−500%
36
+500%
1440p2−3
−650%
15
+650%
4K3−4
−467%
17
+467%

Cost per frame, $

1080p20.83no data
1440p62.50no data
4K41.67no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 30−35
+0%
30−35
+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%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Valorant 80−85
+0%
80−85
+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%
Escape from Tarkov 30−35
+0%
30−35
+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%
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 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Dota 2 75
+0%
75
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 27
+0%
27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+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%
Escape from Tarkov 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+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%
Escape from Tarkov 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how GRID K160Q and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • T500 Mobile is 500% faster in 1080p
  • T500 Mobile is 650% faster in 1440p
  • T500 Mobile is 467% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 50 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 1.49 8.21
Recency 28 June 2013 2 December 2020
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 18 Watt

T500 Mobile has a 451% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 622.2% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GRID K160Q in performance tests.

Be aware that GRID K160Q is a workstation graphics card while Quadro T500 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

NVIDIA GRID K160Q
GRID K160Q
NVIDIA Quadro T500 Mobile
Quadro T500 Mobile
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

GRID K160Q GRID K160Q
vs
GRID K1 GRID K1
T500 Mobile Quadro T500 Mobile
vs
Pro 460 Radeon Pro 460
GRID K160Q GRID K160Q
vs
Quadro K600 Quadro K600
GRID K140Q GRID K140Q
vs
RTX A4000H RTX A4000H
GRID K140Q GRID K140Q
vs
RTX 3050 A Mobile RTX 3050 A Mobile
GRID K160Q GRID K160Q
vs
ATI 8500 Radeon 8500
GRID K160Q GRID K160Q
vs
GT 220 OEM GT 220 OEM
GRID K160Q GRID K160Q
vs
RX 5300 OEM RX 5300 OEM
GRID K160Q GRID K160Q
vs
T600 Mobile Quadro T600 Mobile
GRID K160Q GRID K160Q
vs
RX 7900 XTX RX 7900 XTX
GRID K200 GRID K200
vs
A800 PCIe 40 GB PCIe 40 GB
GRID K240Q GRID K240Q
vs
GTX 1050 Max-Q GTX 1050 Max-Q
GRID K240Q GRID K240Q
vs
P102-100 P102 100

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

No user ratings yet.

Rate GRID K160Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 113 votes

Rate Quadro T500 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GRID K160Q or Quadro T500 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.