Quadro T500 Mobile vs Radeon Pro W5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro W5500 with Quadro T500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
Pro W5500 outperforms T500 Mobile by a whopping 159% 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 | 293 | 547 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.68 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.11 | 35.14 |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Navi 14 | TU117 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 10 February 2020 (5 years ago) | 2 December 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 1408 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 1187 MHz | 1365 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1400 MHz | 1695 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 6,400 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 123.2 | 94.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.942 TFLOPS | 3.037 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 88 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 1024 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 80 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 | 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 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 | 90−95
+150%
| 36
−150%
|
| 1440p | 35−40
+133%
| 15
−133%
|
| 4K | 40−45
+135%
| 17
−135%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.43 | no data |
| 1440p | 11.40 | no data |
| 4K | 9.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
This is how Pro W5500 and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- Pro W5500 is 150% faster in 1080p
- Pro W5500 is 133% faster in 1440p
- Pro W5500 is 135% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 50 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.35 | 8.24 |
| Recency | 10 February 2020 | 2 December 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 125 Watt | 18 Watt |
Pro W5500 has a 159.1% higher aggregate performance score, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 71.4% more advanced lithography process.
T500 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months, and 594.4% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro W5500 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T500 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro W5500 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro T500 Mobile 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.
