RTX A500 vs Quadro K4100M

Place in the ranking	548	315
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.52	no data
Power efficiency	4.94	20.10
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GK104	GA107
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)	10 November 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,499	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	1152	2048
Core clock speed	706 MHz	1440 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1770 MHz
Number of transistors	3,540 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	60 Watt
Texture fill rate	67.78	113.3
Floating-point processing power	1.627 TFLOPS	7.25 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	32
TMUs	96	64
Tensor Cores	no data	64
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	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	no data
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 4.0 x8
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	4 GB	4 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	102.4 GB/s	112.0 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 outputs	No outputs
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.3
CUDA	+	8.6

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

K4100M 7.17

RTX A500 17.52
+144%

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.

K4100M 2755

RTX A500 6737
+145%

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	48 −129%	110−120 +129%
4K	13 −131%	30−35 +131%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	31.23	no data
4K	115.31	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −114%	30−33 +114%
Elden Ring	18−20 −137%	45−50 +137%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −139%	55−60 +139%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −114%	30−33 +114%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −141%	70−75 +141%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −137%	45−50 +137%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 −125%	45−50 +125%
Valorant	21−24 −139%	55−60 +139%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −139%	55−60 +139%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −114%	30−33 +114%
Dota 2	24−27 −140%	60−65 +140%
Elden Ring	18−20 −137%	45−50 +137%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −134%	75−80 +134%
Fortnite	40−45 −138%	100−105 +138%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −141%	70−75 +141%
Grand Theft Auto V	24−27 −140%	60−65 +140%
Metro Exodus	18−20 −137%	45−50 +137%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 −141%	140−150 +141%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22 −125%	45−50 +125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 −127%	50−55 +127%
Valorant	21−24 −139%	55−60 +139%
World of Tanks	110−120 −136%	260−270 +136%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 −139%	55−60 +139%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 −114%	30−33 +114%
Dota 2	24−27 −140%	60−65 +140%
Far Cry 5	30−35 −134%	75−80 +134%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −141%	70−75 +141%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	55−60 −141%	140−150 +141%
Valorant	21−24 −139%	55−60 +139%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	7−8 −129%	16−18 +129%
Elden Ring	9−10 −133%	21−24 +133%
Grand Theft Auto V	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −144%	95−100 +144%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%
World of Tanks	50−55 −131%	120−130 +131%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 −140%	24−27 +140%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
Far Cry 5	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Metro Exodus	10−12 −118%	24−27 +118%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Valorant	18−20 −122%	40−45 +122%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Dota 2	18−20 −122%	40−45 +122%
Elden Ring	4−5 −125%	9−10 +125%
Grand Theft Auto V	18−20 −122%	40−45 +122%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 −138%	50−55 +138%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 −122%	40−45 +122%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 −133%	14−16 +133%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Dota 2	18−20 −122%	40−45 +122%
Far Cry 5	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Fortnite	7−8 −129%	16−18 +129%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −129%	16−18 +129%
Valorant	7−8 −129%	16−18 +129%

This is how K4100M and RTX A500 compete in popular games:

RTX A500 is 129% faster in 1080p
RTX A500 is 131% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.17	17.52
Recency	23 July 2013	10 November 2021
Chip lithography	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	60 Watt

RTX A500 has a 144.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

The RTX A500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4100M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4100M is a mobile workstation card while RTX A500 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.