Quadro T1000 vs Quadro M500M

Place in performance ranking	772	323
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2018)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GM108	TU117
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	15 December 2015 (8 years ago)	27 May 2019 (5 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	384	no data
Core clock speed	1029 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	1124 MHz	1455 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	17.98	no data
Floating-point performance	0.8632 gflops	no data

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	large	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	no data
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	no data
Memory bus width	64 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	4004 MHz	8000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	no data
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 Connectors

No outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12.0 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	no data
Vulkan	1.1.126	-
CUDA	5.0	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 M500M 3.01

Quadro T1000 16.74
+456%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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 M500M 1163

Quadro T1000 6457
+455%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro M500M 6014

Quadro T1000 33911
+464%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro M500M 5222

Quadro T1000 29908
+473%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

Quadro M500M 5713

Quadro T1000 34236
+499%

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

−436%

75−80
+436%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7
−400%

30−33

+400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −456%	50−55 +456%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Battlefield 5	5−6 −440%	27−30 +440%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −400%	35−40 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −400%	30−33 +400%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −400%	30−33 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 −400%	40−45 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −431%	85−90 +431%
Hitman 3	8−9 −400%	40−45 +400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −422%	120−130 +422%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −425%	21−24 +425%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −400%	35−40 +400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −442%	65−70 +442%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −438%	210−220 +438%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −456%	50−55 +456%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Battlefield 5	5−6 −440%	27−30 +440%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −400%	35−40 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −400%	30−33 +400%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −400%	30−33 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 −400%	40−45 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −431%	85−90 +431%
Hitman 3	8−9 −400%	40−45 +400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −422%	120−130 +422%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −425%	21−24 +425%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −400%	35−40 +400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −442%	65−70 +442%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 −450%	110−120 +450%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −438%	210−220 +438%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 −456%	50−55 +456%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 −400%	35−40 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 −400%	30−33 +400%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −400%	30−33 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 −431%	85−90 +431%
Hitman 3	8−9 −400%	40−45 +400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 −422%	120−130 +422%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 −442%	65−70 +442%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −436%	75−80 +436%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 −438%	210−220 +438%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
−400%

35−40

+400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 −440%	27−30 +440%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 −440%	27−30 +440%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −433%	16−18 +433%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −433%	16−18 +433%
Hitman 3	8−9 −400%	40−45 +400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −400%	40−45 +400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 −456%	100−105 +456%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
−400%

30−33

+400%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
−425%

21−24

+425%

This is how Quadro M500M and Quadro T1000 compete in popular games:

Quadro T1000 is 436% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.01	16.74
Recency	15 December 2015	27 May 2019
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	50 Watt

Quadro M500M has 66.7% lower power consumption.

Quadro T1000, on the other hand, has a 456.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro T1000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro M500M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M500M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro T1000 is a workstation one.

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