Quadro RTX 8000 vs Quadro M500M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M500M with Quadro RTX 8000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 8000 outperforms M500M by a whopping 1561% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 784 | 65 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.06 |
| Power efficiency | 6.92 | 13.27 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GM108 | TU102 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 27 April 2016 (8 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $9,999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 384 | 4608 |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 1395 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | 1770 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 18,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 260 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 | 509.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8632 TFLOPS | 16.31 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 96 |
| TMUs | 16 | 288 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 576 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
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-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin + 1x 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 672.0 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 | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 5.0 | 7.5 |
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 | 15
−1500%
| 240−250
+1500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 41.66 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1536%
|
180−190
+1536%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1536%
|
180−190
+1536%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−1543%
|
230−240
+1543%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−1483%
|
95−100
+1483%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
−1536%
|
180−190
+1536%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−1525%
|
65−70
+1525%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1536%
|
180−190
+1536%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−1547%
|
280−290
+1547%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
−1547%
|
280−290
+1547%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−1543%
|
230−240
+1543%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−1483%
|
95−100
+1483%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−1507%
|
450−500
+1507%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−12
−1536%
|
180−190
+1536%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
−1536%
|
180−190
+1536%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−1525%
|
65−70
+1525%
|
| World of Tanks | 50−55
−1474%
|
850−900
+1474%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−1536%
|
180−190
+1536%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−1547%
|
280−290
+1547%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−1543%
|
230−240
+1543%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−1507%
|
450−500
+1507%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−1525%
|
65−70
+1525%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
−1329%
|
300−310
+1329%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| World of Tanks | 21−24
−1329%
|
300−310
+1329%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−1525%
|
65−70
+1525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−1471%
|
110−120
+1471%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1483%
|
95−100
+1483%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−1500%
|
160−170
+1500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1525%
|
260−270
+1525%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1500%
|
240−250
+1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1525%
|
130−140
+1525%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−1525%
|
260−270
+1525%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−1525%
|
260−270
+1525%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−1400%
|
45−50
+1400%
|
This is how Quadro M500M and RTX 8000 compete in popular games:
- RTX 8000 is 1500% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.90 | 48.17 |
| Recency | 27 April 2016 | 13 August 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 260 Watt |
Quadro M500M has 766.7% lower power consumption.
RTX 8000, on the other hand, has a 1561% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro RTX 8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M500M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M500M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro RTX 8000 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
