Radeon RX 7900 XT vs Quadro K500M

Place in the ranking	1047	14
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	37.81
Power efficiency	2.47	17.29
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	GK107	Navi 31
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	1 June 2012 (12 years ago)	3 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$899

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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	192	5376
Core clock speed	850 MHz	1387 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2394 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	300 Watt
Texture fill rate	13.60	804.4
Floating-point processing power	0.3264 TFLOPS	51.48 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	192
TMUs	16	336
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	84

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 x16
Length	no data	276 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	2x 8-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	20 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	320 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	800.0 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	1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	2.2
Vulkan	+	1.3
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. 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.

Quadro K500M 1.21

RX 7900 XT 72.58
+5898%

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.

Quadro K500M 480

RX 7900 XT 28894
+5920%

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	3−4 −6733%	205 +6733%
1440p	2−3 −6600%	134 +6600%
4K	1−2 −8700%	88 +8700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	4.39
1440p	no data	6.71
4K	no data	10.22

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −1518%	170−180 +1518%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −5825%	237 +5825%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −11600%	110−120 +11600%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −1627%	190 +1627%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −2550%	106 +2550%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −6344%	580 +6344%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −2200%	130−140 +2200%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −11600%	110−120 +11600%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −1591%	186 +1591%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −2275%	95 +2275%
Dota 2	1−2 −18000%	181 +18000%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −900%	110 +900%
Fortnite	5−6 −5900%	300−310 +5900%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −5367%	492 +5367%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 −17200%	173 +17200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −1436%	210−220 +1436%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 −2200%	130−140 +2200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −2386%	170−180 +2386%
World of Tanks	27−30 −933%	270−280 +933%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −11600%	110−120 +11600%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 −1427%	168 +1427%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −2125%	89 +2125%
Dota 2	1−2 −18300%	184 +18300%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −1164%	130−140 +1164%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 −4611%	424 +4611%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 −1436%	210−220 +1436%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	5−6 −1340%	70−75 +1340%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −2400%	170−180 +2400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	90−95
World of Tanks	7−8 −7271%	500−550 +7271%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1933%	61 +1933%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −3100%	160−170 +3100%
Forza Horizon 5	0−1	140−150
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −4200%	170−180 +4200%
Valorant	6−7 −5650%	300−350 +5650%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −994%	175 +994%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −1067%	175 +1067%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −6867%	200−210 +6867%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	60−65
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −1067%	175 +1067%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −9000%	90−95 +9000%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1400%	30 +1400%
Dota 2	16−18 −856%	153 +856%
Far Cry 5	0−1	100−110
Valorant	1−2 −20000%	200−210 +20000%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Forza Horizon 5	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%
Metro Exodus	163 +0%	163 +0%
Valorant	400−450 +0%	400−450 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Forza Horizon 5	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%
Metro Exodus	161 +0%	161 +0%
Valorant	400−450 +0%	400−450 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 5	190−200 +0%	190−200 +0%
Valorant	400−450 +0%	400−450 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	159 +0%	159 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	159 +0%	159 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	325 +0%	325 +0%
Metro Exodus	141 +0%	141 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Metro Exodus	87 +0%	87 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30 +0%	30 +0%
Fortnite	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	173 +0%	173 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%

This is how Quadro K500M and RX 7900 XT compete in popular games:

RX 7900 XT is 6733% faster in 1080p
RX 7900 XT is 6600% faster in 1440p
RX 7900 XT is 8700% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 7900 XT is 20000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX 7900 XT is ahead in 41 test (68%)
there's a draw in 19 tests (32%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.21	72.58
Recency	1 June 2012	3 November 2022
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	20 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	300 Watt

Quadro K500M has 757.1% lower power consumption.

RX 7900 XT, on the other hand, has a 5898.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1900% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 7900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K500M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K500M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX 7900 XT is a desktop one.

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