Quadro T500 Mobile vs Quadro P5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P5000 with Quadro T500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
P5000 outperforms T500 Mobile by a whopping 264% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 165 | 484 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.70 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.58 | 34.54 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 October 2016 (8 years ago) | 2 December 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 2048 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 1365 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1733 MHz | 1695 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 277.3 | 94.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.873 TFLOPS | 3.037 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 32 |
| TMUs | 160 | 56 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1127 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 80 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 | 1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 7.5 |
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 | 98
+172%
| 36
−172%
|
| 1440p | 50−55
+233%
| 15
−233%
|
| 4K | 40
+135%
| 17
−135%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 25.50 | no data |
| 1440p | 49.98 | no data |
| 4K | 62.48 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+306%
|
16−18
−306%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+283%
|
18−20
−283%
|
| Elden Ring | 110−120
+348%
|
24−27
−348%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+224%
|
27−30
−224%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+306%
|
16−18
−306%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+763%
|
8
−763%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+325%
|
35−40
−325%
|
| Metro Exodus | 80−85
+290%
|
21−24
−290%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+179%
|
24−27
−179%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+309%
|
30−35
−309%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+224%
|
27−30
−224%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+306%
|
16−18
−306%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+1050%
|
6
−1050%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+18.9%
|
90
−18.9%
|
| Elden Ring | 110−120
+348%
|
24−27
−348%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+218%
|
28
−218%
|
| Fortnite | 150−160
+187%
|
50−55
−187%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+325%
|
35−40
−325%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 100−110
+245%
|
31
−245%
|
| Metro Exodus | 80−85
+242%
|
24−27
−242%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 180−190
+161%
|
70−75
−161%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65−70
+179%
|
24−27
−179%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 110−120
+300%
|
28
−300%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+309%
|
30−35
−309%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+108%
|
130−140
−108%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+224%
|
27−30
−224%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+306%
|
16−18
−306%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+1280%
|
5
−1280%
|
| Dota 2 | 100−110
+42.7%
|
75
−42.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85−90
+230%
|
27
−230%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+325%
|
35−40
−325%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 180−190
+161%
|
70−75
−161%
|
| Valorant | 130−140
+274%
|
35−40
−274%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+269%
|
16−18
−269%
|
| Elden Ring | 60−65
+425%
|
12−14
−425%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+354%
|
13
−354%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+289%
|
45−50
−289%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+288%
|
8−9
−288%
|
| World of Tanks | 210−220
+284%
|
55−60
−284%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+276%
|
16−18
−276%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+275%
|
8−9
−275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+442%
|
18−20
−442%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+379%
|
18−20
−379%
|
| Metro Exodus | 70−75
+306%
|
18−20
−306%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50−55
+279%
|
14−16
−279%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+300%
|
24−27
−300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+300%
|
8−9
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+281%
|
16−18
−281%
|
| Elden Ring | 27−30
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60−65
+336%
|
14
−336%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+281%
|
27−30
−281%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+221%
|
18−20
−221%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+363%
|
8−9
−363%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+300%
|
8−9
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+118%
|
28
−118%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+318%
|
10−12
−318%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
+267%
|
12−14
−267%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+382%
|
10−12
−382%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+308%
|
12−14
−308%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Elden Ring | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Valorant | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how Quadro P5000 and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- Quadro P5000 is 172% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P5000 is 233% faster in 1440p
- Quadro P5000 is 135% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P5000 is 1280% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P5000 is ahead in 44 tests (77%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (23%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 32.83 | 9.01 |
| Recency | 1 October 2016 | 2 December 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 16 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 18 Watt |
Quadro P5000 has a 264.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount.
T500 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 33.3% more advanced lithography process, and 455.6% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T500 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro P5000 is a workstation card while Quadro T500 Mobile is a mobile 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.
