Quadro T500 Mobile vs Radeon Pro WX 4150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX 4150 and Quadro T500 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
T500 Mobile outperforms Pro WX 4150 by a significant 29% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 565 | 492 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 9.59 | 34.38 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | TU117 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 March 2017 (7 years ago) | 2 December 2020 (4 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 | 896 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 1002 MHz | 1365 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1053 MHz | 1695 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 58.97 | 94.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.887 TFLOPS | 3.037 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 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 | medium sized | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 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 | 27−30
−33.3%
| 36
+33.3%
|
| 1440p | 10−12
−50%
| 15
+50%
|
| 4K | 12−14
−41.7%
| 17
+41.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−32.1%
|
35−40
+32.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−50%
|
30
+50%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−27.5%
|
50−55
+27.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−27.6%
|
35−40
+27.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−25%
|
30−33
+25%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−18.1%
|
85−90
+18.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−32.1%
|
35−40
+32.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 100−110
−23.4%
|
130−140
+23.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−73.1%
|
90
+73.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−40%
|
28
+40%
|
| Fortnite | 40−45
−27.5%
|
50−55
+27.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−27.6%
|
35−40
+27.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
−31.3%
|
21−24
+31.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
−29.2%
|
31
+29.2%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−25%
|
30−33
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−64.7%
|
28
+64.7%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−18.1%
|
85−90
+18.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
−32.1%
|
35−40
+32.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Dota 2 | 50−55
−44.2%
|
75
+44.2%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20−22
−35%
|
27
+35%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
−27.6%
|
35−40
+27.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
−25%
|
30−33
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−11.8%
|
19
+11.8%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−25%
|
90−95
+25%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 40−45
−27.5%
|
50−55
+27.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
−30%
|
65−70
+30%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
−62.5%
|
13
+62.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
−28.2%
|
50−55
+28.2%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
−28.4%
|
95−100
+28.4%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
−58.3%
|
18−20
+58.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
−25%
|
20−22
+25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−20%
|
12−14
+20%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 12−14
−30.8%
|
16−18
+30.8%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+28.6%
|
14
−28.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−33.3%
|
40−45
+33.3%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
−21.7%
|
28
+21.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−40%
|
14−16
+40%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how Pro WX 4150 and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- T500 Mobile is 33% faster in 1080p
- T500 Mobile is 50% faster in 1440p
- T500 Mobile is 42% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro WX 4150 is 29% faster.
- in Metro Exodus, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the T500 Mobile is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro WX 4150 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- T500 Mobile is ahead in 43 tests (96%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.83 | 8.82 |
| Recency | 1 March 2017 | 2 December 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 18 Watt |
Pro WX 4150 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
T500 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 29.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 177.8% lower power consumption.
The Quadro T500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon Pro WX 4150 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
