Quadro K500M vs Radeon R5 M230
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M230 with Quadro K500M, including specs and performance data.
K500M outperforms R5 M230 by a moderate 14% 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 | 1151 | 1108 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.52 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Jet | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2014 (11 years ago) | 1 June 2012 (13 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 | 320 | 192 |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 825 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 855 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.10 | 13.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5472 TFLOPS | 0.3264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 20 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 12.8 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 |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 10
+0%
| 10−12
+0%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3.2%
|
30−35
+3.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−8%
|
27−30
+8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3.2%
|
30−35
+3.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−3.2%
|
30−35
+3.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how R5 M230 and Quadro K500M compete in popular games:
- A tie in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro K500M is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro K500M performs better in 20 tests (43%)
- there's a draw in 27 tests (57%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.01 | 1.15 |
| Recency | 7 January 2014 | 1 June 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
R5 M230 has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro K500M, on the other hand, has a 13.9% higher aggregate performance score.
The Quadro K500M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M230 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M230 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K500M 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.
