Quadro K500M vs GeForce GTX 780M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 780M with Quadro K500M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 780M outperforms K500M by a whopping 693% 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 | 498 | 1093 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.70 | 2.51 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 11 May 2013 (12 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 | 1536 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 823 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 797 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 102.0 | 13.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.448 TFLOPS | 0.3264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 128 | 16 |
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 |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0, PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Standard memory configuration | GDDR5 | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2500 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 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 outputs | No outputs |
| eDP 1.2 signal support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| LVDS signal support | Up to 1920x1200 | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | Up to 3840x2160 | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP content protection | + | - |
| 7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI | + | - |
| TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Blu-Ray 3D Support | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | + |
| 3D Vision / 3DTV Play | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | + |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
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 | 66
+725%
| 8−9
−725%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+471%
|
7−8
−471%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+267%
|
9−10
−267%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+181%
|
30−35
−181%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50
+717%
|
6−7
−717%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 191
+607%
|
27−30
−607%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+319%
|
16−18
−319%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+471%
|
7−8
−471%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+267%
|
9−10
−267%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+400%
|
7−8
−400%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+181%
|
30−35
−181%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+319%
|
16−18
−319%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−33
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+471%
|
7−8
−471%
|
| God of War | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+267%
|
9−10
−267%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 17
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+181%
|
30−35
−181%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60
+2700%
|
2−3
−2700%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+914%
|
7−8
−914%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+300%
|
12−14
−300%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+3333%
|
3−4
−3333%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+33.3%
|
14−16
−33.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+700%
|
6−7
−700%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| God of War | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
This is how GTX 780M and Quadro K500M compete in popular games:
- GTX 780M is 725% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 780M is 4000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 780M surpassed Quadro K500M in all 42 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.12 | 1.15 |
| Recency | 11 May 2013 | 1 June 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 122 Watt | 35 Watt |
GTX 780M has a 693% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro K500M, on the other hand, has 248.6% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 780M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K500M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 780M 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.
