Quadro T500 Mobile vs NVS 510

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
K1 K100 K120Q K160Q K180Q K340 NVS 510 Quadro 410 Quadro K420 Quadro K600 Quadro K2000 Quadro K2000D
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
T400 Mobile T500 Mobile T600 Mobile T1000 Mobile T1000 Max-Q T1200 Max-Q T1200 Mobile T2000 Mobile T2000 Max-Q T500 Max-Q T550 Mobile T600 Max-Q

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 510 with Quadro T500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

NVS 510
2012, $449
2 GB DDR3, 35 Watt
1.62

T500 Mobile outperforms NVS 510 by a whopping 409% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
NVS 510 NVS 510
T500 Mobile T500 Mobile

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking993550
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.04no data
Power efficiency3.5635.22
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGK107TU117
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date23 October 2012 (13 years ago)2 December 2020 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores192896
Core clock speed797 MHz1365 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1695 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate12.7594.92
Floating-point processing power0.306 TFLOPS3.037 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs1656
L1 Cache16 KB896 KB
L2 Cache256 KB1024 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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length160 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount2 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed891 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.51 GB/s80 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.2
CUDA3.07.5

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 HD7−8
−414%
36
+414%
1440p2−3
−650%
15
+650%
4K3−4
−467%
17
+467%

Cost per frame, $

1080p64.14no data
1440p224.50no data
4K149.67no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+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%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+0%
14−16
+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%
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%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+0%
14−16
+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%
Far Cry 5 27
+0%
27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+0%
14−16
+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%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+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%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

This is how NVS 510 and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • T500 Mobile is 414% faster in 1080p
  • T500 Mobile is 650% faster in 1440p
  • T500 Mobile is 467% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 51 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 1.62 8.25
Recency 23 October 2012 2 December 2020
Chip lithography 28 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 18 Watt

T500 Mobile has a 409.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 94.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 510 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 510 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro T500 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

NVIDIA NVS 510
NVS 510
NVIDIA Quadro T500 Mobile
Quadro T500 Mobile
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

NVS 510 NVS 510
vs
FX 4700 X2 Quadro FX 4700 X2
T500 Mobile Quadro T500 Mobile
vs
Pro 460 Radeon Pro 460
NVS 510 NVS 510
vs
FireStream 9170 FireStream 9170
Tesla K20c NVIDIA Tesla K20c
vs
x4 MMS
Tesla K20c NVIDIA Tesla K20c
vs
G550
Tesla K20X NVIDIA Tesla K20X
vs
UHD Graphics 615 Graphics 615
NVS 510 NVIDIA NVS 510
vs
Xbox XGPU-B XGPU B
NVS 510 NVIDIA NVS 510
vs
RX 6900 XT RX 6900 XT
NVS 510 NVIDIA NVS 510
vs
RTX 4060 Mobile RTX 4060 Mobile
NVS 510 NVIDIA NVS 510
vs
RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB
Quadro K5000 NVIDIA Quadro K5000
vs
HD 7950 Boost HD 7950 Boost
Quadro K5000 NVIDIA Quadro K5000
vs
8800 GTS 512 GeForce 8800 GTS 512
Quadro K5000 NVIDIA Quadro K5000
vs
7200 GS GeForce 7200 GS

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

2.9 69 votes

Rate NVS 510 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 113 votes

Rate Quadro T500 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about NVS 510 or Quadro T500 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.