Quadro T500 Mobile vs Quadro FX 880M

Place in the ranking	1210	486
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.14	34.46
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GT216	TU117
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	7 January 2010 (15 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	48	896
Core clock speed	550 MHz	1365 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1695 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	18 Watt
Texture fill rate	8.800	94.92
Floating-point processing power	0.1162 TFLOPS	3.037 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	32
TMUs	16	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	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16

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	GDDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	790 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.28 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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.6
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2
CUDA	1.2	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	19 −89.5%	36 +89.5%
1440p	0−1	15
4K	1−2 −1600%	17 +1600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1344%	130−140 +1344%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1344%	130−140 +1344%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −300%	8 +300%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −500%	35−40 +500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1344%	130−140 +1344%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −200%	6 +200%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −300%	28 +300%
Fortnite	0−1	50−55
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −500%	35−40 +500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10 −689%	70−75 +689%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −380%	24−27 +380%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −460%	28 +460%
World of Tanks	16−18 −682%	130−140 +682%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1344%	130−140 +1344%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −150%	5 +150%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −286%	27 +286%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −500%	35−40 +500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10 −689%	70−75 +689%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −1400%	45−50 +1400%
World of Tanks	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1344%	130−140 +1344%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −375%	18−20 +375%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −1400%	30−33 +1400%
Valorant	5−6 −1400%	75−80 +1400%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −1433%	230−240 +1433%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +7.1%	14 −7.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −26.7%	18−20 +26.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	8−9
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Dota 2	14−16 −86.7%	28 +86.7%
Valorant	1−2 −1300%	14−16 +1300%

Full HD
Low Preset

Elden Ring

24−27

+0%

24−27

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Elden Ring	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Far Cry 5	30 +0%	30 +0%
Fortnite	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Dota 2	90 +0%	90 +0%
Elden Ring	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	31 +0%	31 +0%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Valorant	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Dota 2	75 +0%	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

Elden Ring	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	13 +0%	13 +0%
Metro Exodus	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Valorant	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

21−24

+0%

21−24

+0%

4K
High Preset

Elden Ring	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Metro Exodus	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Valorant	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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 880M and T500 Mobile compete in popular games:

T500 Mobile is 89% faster in 1080p
T500 Mobile is 1600% 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 FX 880M is 7% faster.
in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the T500 Mobile is 800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

FX 880M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
T500 Mobile is ahead in 20 tests (36%)
there's a draw in 34 tests (62%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.58	9.01
Recency	7 January 2010	2 December 2020
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	18 Watt

T500 Mobile has a 1453.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 94.4% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 880M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.