Radeon R7 M260DX vs Quadro P500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P500 with Radeon R7 M260DX, including specs and performance data.
P500 outperforms R7 M260DX by a whopping 104% 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 | 740 | 936 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 16.92 | no data |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP108 | Jet |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 January 2018 (7 years ago) | 7 January 2014 (11 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 | 256 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 1455 MHz | 780 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1518 MHz | 855 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 690 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 24.29 | 17.10 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7772 TFLOPS | 0.5472 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 128 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 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 outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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.
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 | 20
+122%
| 9−10
−122%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+125%
|
24−27
−125%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+106%
|
35−40
−106%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 49
+104%
|
24−27
−104%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+125%
|
24−27
−125%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 45
+114%
|
21−24
−114%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+125%
|
24−27
−125%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+130%
|
10−11
−130%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+121%
|
14−16
−121%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+129%
|
14−16
−129%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+133%
|
18−20
−133%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+114%
|
7−8
−114%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
+122%
|
9−10
−122%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
This is how Quadro P500 and R7 M260DX compete in popular games:
- Quadro P500 is 122% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.95 | 1.94 |
| Recency | 5 January 2018 | 7 January 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Quadro P500 has a 103.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro P500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 M260DX in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P500 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R7 M260DX 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.
