Quadro T500 Mobile vs Quadro FX 1500

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Quadro FX 1500 Quadro FX 3500 Quadro FX 4500 X2 Quadro FX 5500 Quadro FX 5500 SDI
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 Quadro FX 1500 with Quadro T500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

FX 1500
2006
256 MB GDDR3, 65 Watt
0.42

T500 Mobile outperforms FX 1500 by a whopping 1962% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

FX 1500 FX 1500
T500 Mobile T500 Mobile

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1256493
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.4634.53
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameG71TU117
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date20 April 2006 (18 years ago)2 December 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$699 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 coresno data896
Core clock speed325 MHz1365 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1695 MHz
Number of transistors278 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate7.80094.92
Floating-point processing powerno data3.037 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs2456

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 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length173 mmno data
Width1-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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed625 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth40 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 (12_1)
Shader Model3.06.6
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.2
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 HD1−2
−3500%
36
+3500%
1440p0−115
4K0−117

Cost per frame, $

1080p699.00no data

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 FX 1500 and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • T500 Mobile is 3500% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 54 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.42 8.66
Recency 20 April 2006 2 December 2020
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 18 Watt

T500 Mobile has a 1961.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 650% more advanced lithography process, and 261.1% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1500 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 1500 is a workstation 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.

NVIDIA Quadro FX 1500
Quadro FX 1500
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.

FX 1500 Quadro FX 1500
vs
FX 380 Quadro FX 380
T500 Mobile Quadro T500 Mobile
vs
Pro W5500M Radeon Pro W5500M
FX 1500 Quadro FX 1500
vs
FX 580 Quadro FX 580
FX 4600 SDI NVIDIA FX 4600 SDI
vs
FX 3400 3400
FX 5600 NVIDIA FX 5600
vs
UHD Graphics 610 Graphics 610
FX 1500 NVIDIA FX 1500
vs
GTX 1060 6 GB GDDR5X 1060 6 GB GDDR5X
FX 1500 NVIDIA FX 1500
vs
RX 5700 XT 5700 XT
FX 1500 NVIDIA FX 1500
vs
Playstation 5 GPU GPU
FX 1500 NVIDIA FX 1500
vs
Iris Xe Graphics G4 48EU Mobile Graphics G4 48EU Mobile
FX 1500 NVIDIA FX 1500
vs
RTX 3500 Ada Generation Mobile 3500 Ada Generation Mobile
FX 550 NVIDIA FX 550
vs
ATI FireGL V3100 V3100
NVS 50 PCI NVIDIA NVS 50 PCI
vs
RTX 3080 Mobile 3080 Mobile
FX 540 NVIDIA FX 540
vs
ATI 9550 9550

Community ratings

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

3.4 33 votes

Rate Quadro FX 1500 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 Quadro FX 1500 or Quadro T500 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.