Quadro T500 Mobile vs GeForce GTX 275
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 275 with Quadro T500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
T500 Mobile outperforms GTX 275 by a whopping 155% 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 | 789 | 548 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.31 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.13 | 35.17 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GT200B | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 15 January 2009 (16 years ago) | 2 December 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | 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 | 240 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 633 MHz | 1365 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1695 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 50.64 | 94.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6739 TFLOPS | 3.037 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 28 | 32 |
| TMUs | 80 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 224 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 | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 448 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1134 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 127.0 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 | Two Dual Link DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 3.0 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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 | 14−16
−157%
| 36
+157%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
−200%
| 15
+200%
|
| 4K | 6−7
−183%
| 17
+183%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 17.79 | no data |
| 1440p | 49.80 | no data |
| 4K | 41.50 | no 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 GTX 275 and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T500 Mobile is 157% faster in 1080p
- T500 Mobile is 200% faster in 1440p
- T500 Mobile is 183% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 50 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.20 | 8.17 |
| Recency | 15 January 2009 | 2 December 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 219 Watt | 18 Watt |
T500 Mobile has a 155.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 128.6% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 358.3% more advanced lithography process, and 1116.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 275 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 275 is a desktop 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.
