Quadro P500 vs Radeon HD 6630M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6630M with Quadro P500, including specs and performance data.
P500 outperforms HD 6630M by a whopping 140% 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 | 990 | 746 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.85 | 16.82 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Whistler | GP108 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 5 January 2018 (7 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 | 480 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 1455 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1518 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.00 | 24.29 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.48 TFLOPS | 0.7772 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 48 KB | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 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 | medium sized | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 40.1 GB/s |
| 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 | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 17
−17.6%
| 20
+17.6%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−250%
|
14
+250%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−283%
|
21−24
+283%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−50%
|
50−55
+50%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−1500%
|
16−18
+1500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−103%
|
70−75
+103%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−158%
|
49
+158%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−200%
|
12
+200%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
−283%
|
21−24
+283%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−100%
|
14
+100%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−50%
|
50−55
+50%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−137%
|
45
+137%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−100%
|
8
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−111%
|
18−20
+111%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−60%
|
16−18
+60%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−50%
|
50−55
+50%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7
−283%
|
21−24
+283%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−88.2%
|
30−35
+88.2%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
−356%
|
40−45
+356%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−150%
|
10−11
+150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−14.3%
|
16−18
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−150%
|
20−22
+150%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−333%
|
12−14
+333%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how HD 6630M and Quadro P500 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P500 is 18% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Quadro P500 is 1500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro P500 performs better in 53 tests (91%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.64 | 3.94 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 5 January 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 18 Watt |
Quadro P500 has a 140.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 44.4% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6630M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6630M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P500 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.
