Radeon RX 5300 vs Quadro K500M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K500M with Radeon RX 5300, including specs and performance data.
RX 5300 outperforms K500M by a whopping 1488% 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 | 1106 | 336 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.51 | 13.97 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | Navi 14 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 28 May 2020 (5 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 | 192 | 1408 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 1327 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1645 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 6,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 100 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.60 | 144.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3264 TFLOPS | 4.632 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 88 |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 1536 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 180 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 3 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 96 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 168.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
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 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1456%
|
140−150
+1456%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1463%
|
500−550
+1463%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−1381%
|
400−450
+1381%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1463%
|
250−260
+1463%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1456%
|
140−150
+1456%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1463%
|
500−550
+1463%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1463%
|
250−260
+1463%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1456%
|
140−150
+1456%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1463%
|
500−550
+1463%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−1400%
|
60−65
+1400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1483%
|
190−200
+1483%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1471%
|
220−230
+1471%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−1483%
|
95−100
+1483%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.13 | 17.95 |
| Recency | 1 June 2012 | 28 May 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 3 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 100 Watt |
Quadro K500M has 185.7% lower power consumption.
RX 5300, on the other hand, has a 1488.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 5300 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K500M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K500M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 5300 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
