ATI Radeon HD 4570 vs Quadro M500M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M500M with Radeon HD 4570, including specs and performance data.

Quadro M500M
2016
2 GB GDDR3, 30 Watt
3.02
+492%

M500M outperforms ATI HD 4570 by a whopping 492% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking7731235
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.391.50
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameGM108RV710
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date27 April 2016 (8 years ago)25 November 2008 (15 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 cores38480
Core clock speed1029 MHz650 MHz
Boost clock speed1124 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data242 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate17.985.200
Floating-point processing power0.8632 TFLOPS0.104 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs168

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR3DDR2
Maximum RAM amount2 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s8 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

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 compatibility

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

DirectX1210.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA5.0-

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 M500M 3.02
+492%
ATI HD 4570 0.51

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 M500M 1163
+487%
ATI HD 4570 198

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 HD15
+650%
2−3
−650%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+550%
6−7
−550%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20
+567%
3−4
−567%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+550%
6−7
−550%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+550%
6−7
−550%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

This is how Quadro M500M and ATI HD 4570 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro M500M is 650% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.02 0.51
Recency 27 April 2016 25 November 2008
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 25 Watt

Quadro M500M has a 492.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

ATI HD 4570, on the other hand, has 20% lower power consumption.

The Quadro M500M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4570 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M500M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon HD 4570 is a desktop one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro M500M
Quadro M500M
ATI Radeon HD 4570
Radeon HD 4570

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.6 12 votes

Rate Quadro M500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 31 vote

Rate Radeon HD 4570 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.