Quadro T500 Mobile vs Radeon R9 285
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 285 with Quadro T500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
R9 285 outperforms T500 Mobile by an impressive 94% 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 | 368 | 555 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.68 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 6.47 | 35.29 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Tonga | TU117 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 September 2014 (11 years ago) | 2 December 2020 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $249 | 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 | 1792 | 896 |
| Core clock speed | 918 MHz | 1365 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1695 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,000 million | 4,700 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 102.8 | 94.92 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.29 TFLOPS | 3.037 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 112 | 56 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | 896 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 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 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 221 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1375 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 176.0 GB/s | 80 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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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 | 65−70
+80.6%
| 36
−80.6%
|
| 1440p | 27−30
+80%
| 15
−80%
|
| 4K | 30−35
+76.5%
| 17
−76.5%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.83 | no data |
| 1440p | 9.22 | no data |
| 4K | 8.30 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+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%
|
| 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%
|
| 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%
|
| 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%
|
| 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 R9 285 and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- R9 285 is 81% faster in 1080p
- R9 285 is 80% faster in 1440p
- R9 285 is 76% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 45 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.97 | 8.25 |
| Recency | 2 September 2014 | 2 December 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 190 Watt | 18 Watt |
R9 285 has a 93.6% higher aggregate performance score.
T500 Mobile, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 133.3% more advanced lithography process, and 955.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 285 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T500 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R9 285 is a desktop 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.
