Quadro T500 Mobile vs Quadro 5000M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 5000M and Quadro T500 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
T500 Mobile outperforms 5000M by an impressive 67% 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 | 676 | 547 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.78 | 35.14 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 27 July 2010 (15 years ago) | 2 December 2020 (4 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 | 320 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 405 MHz | 1365 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1695 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.20 | 94.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5184 TFLOPS | 3.037 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 40 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 640 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 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 | large | medium sized |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 600 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 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 | 21−24
−71.4%
| 36
+71.4%
|
| 1440p | 8−9
−87.5%
| 15
+87.5%
|
| 4K | 10−12
−70%
| 17
+70%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−52.2%
|
35−40
+52.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−76.2%
|
35−40
+76.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−52.2%
|
35−40
+52.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
−78.9%
|
30−35
+78.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−100%
|
30
+100%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
−70%
|
50−55
+70%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−60.9%
|
35−40
+60.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−78.6%
|
24−27
+78.6%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−57.9%
|
30−33
+57.9%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−37.7%
|
80−85
+37.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−76.2%
|
35−40
+76.2%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
−52.2%
|
35−40
+52.2%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
−51.2%
|
130−140
+51.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−114%
|
90
+114%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
−78.9%
|
30−35
+78.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−86.7%
|
28
+86.7%
|
| Fortnite | 30−33
−70%
|
50−55
+70%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−60.9%
|
35−40
+60.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−78.6%
|
24−27
+78.6%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−82.4%
|
31
+82.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−57.9%
|
30−33
+57.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−100%
|
28
+100%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−37.7%
|
80−85
+37.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
−76.2%
|
35−40
+76.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
−78.6%
|
75
+78.6%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
−78.9%
|
30−35
+78.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
−80%
|
27
+80%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
−60.9%
|
35−40
+60.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
−57.9%
|
30−33
+57.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−35.7%
|
19
+35.7%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
−63.9%
|
100−105
+63.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−33
−70%
|
50−55
+70%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−68.4%
|
60−65
+68.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
−225%
|
13
+225%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−66.7%
|
60−65
+66.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
−70.9%
|
90−95
+70.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−280%
|
18−20
+280%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16−18
+77.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−70%
|
16−18
+70%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−66.7%
|
20−22
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
−70%
|
16−18
+70%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−72%
|
40−45
+72%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−64.7%
|
28
+64.7%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
1440p
High
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how Quadro 5000M and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T500 Mobile is 71% faster in 1080p
- T500 Mobile is 88% faster in 1440p
- T500 Mobile is 70% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro 5000M is 14% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the T500 Mobile is 700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro 5000M performs better in 1 test (2%)
- T500 Mobile performs better in 47 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.92 | 8.24 |
| Recency | 27 July 2010 | 2 December 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1792 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 18 Watt |
T500 Mobile has a 67.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 14.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 455.6% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 5000M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
