Quadro K500M vs GeForce 8200M G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 8200M G with Quadro K500M, including specs and performance data.
K500M outperforms 8200M G by a whopping 660% 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 | 1480 | 1106 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.51 |
| Architecture | no data | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | MCP77MV MCP79MVL | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 3 June 2008 (17 years ago) | 1 June 2012 (13 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 | 8 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 13.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.3264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 128 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 | no data | MXM-A (3.0) |
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 | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 12.8 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 | no data | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−33.3%
|
30−35
+33.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−145%
|
27−30
+145%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−33.3%
|
30−35
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−33.3%
|
30−35
+33.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro K500M is 500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro K500M performs better in 25 tests (58%)
- there's a draw in 18 tests (42%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.15 | 1.14 |
| Recency | 3 June 2008 | 1 June 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 28 nm |
Quadro K500M has a 660% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro K500M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8200M G in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 8200M G is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K500M 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.
