Quadro K500M vs GeForce GTX 260M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 260M SLI with Quadro K500M, including specs and performance data.
260M SLI outperforms K500M by a whopping 166% 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 | 805 | 1106 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.56 | 2.51 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | NB9E-GTX | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (16 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 | 224 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 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 | large | 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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | 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 | + | + |
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
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+46.9%
|
30−35
−46.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+115%
|
27−30
−115%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+46.9%
|
30−35
−46.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+87.5%
|
16−18
−87.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+46.9%
|
30−35
−46.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 260M SLI is 900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 260M SLI surpassed Quadro K500M in all 43 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.03 | 1.14 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 1 June 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 35 Watt |
GTX 260M SLI has a 165.8% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro K500M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 328.6% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 260M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K500M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 260M SLI 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.
