Quadro T500 Mobile vs Radeon RX 560X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Radeon RX 560 Radeon RX 560 896SP Radeon RX 560D Radeon RX 560DX Radeon RX 560X
VS
Quadro T400 Mobile Quadro T500 Mobile Quadro T600 Mobile Quadro T1000 Mobile Quadro T1000 Max-Q Quadro T1200 Max-Q Quadro T1200 Mobile Quadro T2000 Mobile Quadro T2000 Max-Q T500 Max-Q T550 Mobile T600 Max-Q

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 560X with Quadro T500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

RX 560X
2018
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
7.91

T500 Mobile outperforms RX 560X by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

RX 560X RX 560X
T500 Mobile T500 Mobile

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking518493
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency7.5734.53
ArchitectureGCN 4.0 (2016−2020)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code namePolaris 21TU117
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date11 April 2018 (6 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 cores1024896
Core clock speed1175 MHz1365 MHz
Boost clock speed1275 MHz1695 MHz
Number of transistors3,000 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate81.6094.92
Floating-point processing power2.611 TFLOPS3.037 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs6456

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 3.0 x16
Length170 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1750 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth112.0 GB/s80 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.03.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.2
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 HD30−35
−20%
36
+20%
1440p12−14
−25%
15
+25%
4K14−16
−21.4%
17
+21.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8
+0%
8
+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 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6
+0%
6
+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 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 31
+0%
31
+0%
Metro Exodus 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+0%
28
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
World of Tanks 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+0%
5
+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 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+0%
19
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 13
+0%
13
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14
+0%
14
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 28
+0%
28
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

This is how RX 560X and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • T500 Mobile is 20% faster in 1080p
  • T500 Mobile is 25% faster in 1440p
  • T500 Mobile is 21% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 54 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 7.91 8.66
Recency 11 April 2018 2 December 2020
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 18 Watt

RX 560X has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

T500 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 9.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 316.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon RX 560X and Quadro T500 Mobile.

Be aware that Radeon RX 560X is a desktop card while Quadro T500 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

AMD Radeon RX 560X
Radeon RX 560X
NVIDIA Quadro T500 Mobile
Quadro T500 Mobile
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

RX 560X Radeon RX 560X
vs
GTX 560 Ti 448 GeForce GTX 560 Ti 448
T500 Mobile Quadro T500 Mobile
vs
Pro W5500M Radeon Pro W5500M
RX 560X Radeon RX 560X
vs
R7 260X Radeon R7 260X
RTX 8000 NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000
vs
RTX 4060 Ti Mobile RTX 4060 Ti Mobile
RTX 2070 NVIDIA RTX 2070
vs
RTX 2070 Max-Q Refresh 2070 Max-Q Refresh
Pro 555X AMD Radeon Pro 555X
vs
HD 6850 HD 6850
Tesla P100 DGXS NVIDIA Tesla P100 DGXS
vs
Arc A770 Arc A770
GTX 680M NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M
vs
GT 635M GT 635M
Tesla V100 PCIe 16 GB NVIDIA Tesla V100 PCIe 16 GB
vs
RTX 2070 RTX 2070
Tesla V100 SXM2 32 GB NVIDIA Tesla V100 SXM2 32 GB
vs
H100 SXM5 H100 SXM5
GT 1030 DDR4 NVIDIA GeForce GT 1030 DDR4
vs
RTX A2000 RTX A2000
NX-SoC NVIDIA NX SoC
vs
UHD Graphics 770 Mobile UHD Graphics 770 Mobile
Pro Vega 56 AMD Radeon Pro Vega 56
vs
Apple M3 Pro 14-Core GPU Pro 14-Core GPU

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.9 405 votes

Rate Radeon RX 560X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 109 votes

Rate Quadro T500 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX 560X or Quadro T500 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.