Quadro FX 1500M vs GeForce GTX 480M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 480M SLI with Quadro FX 1500M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 480M SLI outperforms FX 1500M by a whopping 1368% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 590 | 1261 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.44 | 0.67 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | N11E-GTX-A3 | G71 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 25 May 2010 (14 years ago) | 18 April 2006 (18 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 | 704 | 27 |
| Core clock speed | 425 MHz | 375 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 375 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6000 Million | 278 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 9.000 |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
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 | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-II |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1200 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 32 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | no data | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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:
| 900p | 61
+1425%
| 4−5
−1425%
|
| Full HD | 69
+1625%
| 4−5
−1625%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+156%
|
27−30
−156%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−105
+567%
|
14−16
−567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+390%
|
10−11
−390%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Fortnite | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+156%
|
27−30
−156%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+390%
|
10−11
−390%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+229%
|
7−8
−229%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+156%
|
27−30
−156%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+850%
|
4−5
−850%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
+1600%
|
4−5
−1600%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
This is how GTX 480M SLI and FX 1500M compete in popular games:
- GTX 480M SLI is 1425% faster in 900p
- GTX 480M SLI is 1625% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 480M SLI is 1300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 480M SLI surpassed FX 1500M in all 28 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.58 | 0.38 |
| Recency | 25 May 2010 | 18 April 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 45 Watt |
GTX 480M SLI has a 1368.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 125% more advanced lithography process.
FX 1500M, on the other hand, has 122.2% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 480M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1500M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 480M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Quadro FX 1500M 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.
