Radeon RX Vega 9 vs Quadro K500M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K500M with Radeon RX Vega 9, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 9 outperforms K500M by a whopping 341% 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 | 1114 | 678 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.53 | 26.03 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Vega (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | GK107 | Vega Raven Ridge |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (14 years ago) | 26 October 2017 (8 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 576 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,270 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.60 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3264 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 16 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 16 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
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) | no 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 type | DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | no data |
| 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 data |
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_1 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | + | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 4−5
−350%
| 18
+350%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−633%
|
22
+633%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−122%
|
20−22
+122%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−96.9%
|
60−65
+96.9%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−226%
|
85−90
+226%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−169%
|
40−45
+169%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−433%
|
16
+433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−122%
|
20−22
+122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−117%
|
13
+117%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−96.9%
|
60−65
+96.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−169%
|
40−45
+169%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−700%
|
16−18
+700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−122%
|
20−22
+122%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−96.9%
|
60−65
+96.9%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−200%
|
9
+200%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−457%
|
35−40
+457%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−200%
|
35−40
+200%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−2700%
|
55−60
+2700%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−333%
|
24−27
+333%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 18−20 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
High
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
This is how Quadro K500M and RX Vega 9 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 9 is 350% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 9 is 2700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 9 performs better in 42 tests (76%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (24%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.15 | 5.07 |
| Recency | 1 June 2012 | 26 October 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 15 Watt |
RX Vega 9 has a 341% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 133% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 9 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 Vega 9 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
