GRID K160Q vs Quadro K500M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K500M with GRID K160Q, including specs and performance data.

Quadro K500M
2012
1 GB DDR3, 35 Watt
1.24

GRID K160Q outperforms K500M by a substantial 31% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1037952
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.30
Power efficiency2.470.87
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGK107GK107
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)28 June 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$125

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores192192
Core clock speed850 MHz850 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt130 Watt
Texture fill rate13.6013.60
Floating-point processing power0.3264 TFLOPS0.3264 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs1616

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz891 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/s28.51 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.1.126
CUDA+3.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro K500M 1.24
GRID K160Q 1.63
+31.5%

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.

Quadro K500M 480
GRID K160Q 628
+30.8%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−21.2%
40−45
+21.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−21.2%
40−45
+21.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−21.2%
40−45
+21.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.24 1.63
Recency 1 June 2012 28 June 2013
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 130 Watt

Quadro K500M has 271.4% lower power consumption.

GRID K160Q, on the other hand, has a 31.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

The GRID K160Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K500M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K500M is a mobile workstation card while GRID K160Q is a workstation one.


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

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 K500M
Quadro K500M
NVIDIA GRID K160Q
GRID K160Q

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


No user ratings yet.

Rate Quadro K500M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate GRID K160Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.