Radeon RX 6400 vs Quadro T500 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro T500 Mobile with Radeon RX 6400, including specs and performance data.
RX 6400 outperforms T500 Mobile by a whopping 125% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 555 | 330 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 43.48 |
| Power efficiency | 35.29 | 26.92 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | TU117 | Navi 24 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 December 2020 (5 years ago) | 19 January 2022 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $159 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 | 896 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 1365 MHz | 1923 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1695 MHz | 2321 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 4,700 million | 5,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 53 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 94.92 | 111.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.037 TFLOPS | 3.565 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 32 |
| TMUs | 56 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 192 KB |
| L1 Cache | 896 KB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 1024 KB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 16 MB |
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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x4 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 80 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.6 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 2.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| 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 HD | 36
−122%
| 80−85
+122%
|
| 1440p | 15
−100%
| 30−35
+100%
|
| 4K | 17
−106%
| 35−40
+106%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 1.99 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.30 |
| 4K | no data | 4.54 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−116%
|
80−85
+116%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
−117%
|
65−70
+117%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
−116%
|
110−120
+116%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−116%
|
80−85
+116%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−120%
|
55−60
+120%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−117%
|
65−70
+117%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−114%
|
180−190
+114%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−116%
|
80−85
+116%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140
−123%
|
290−300
+123%
|
| Dota 2 | 90
−122%
|
200−210
+122%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 28
−114%
|
60−65
+114%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
−116%
|
110−120
+116%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−116%
|
80−85
+116%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
−120%
|
55−60
+120%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 31
−110%
|
65−70
+110%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−117%
|
65−70
+117%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 28
−114%
|
60−65
+114%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−114%
|
180−190
+114%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−116%
|
80−85
+116%
|
| Dota 2 | 75
−113%
|
160−170
+113%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27
−122%
|
60−65
+122%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−116%
|
80−85
+116%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
−117%
|
65−70
+117%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
−111%
|
40−45
+111%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
−116%
|
110−120
+116%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
−119%
|
140−150
+119%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
−108%
|
27−30
+108%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−100%
|
24−27
+100%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−115%
|
200−210
+115%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−111%
|
40−45
+111%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
−100%
|
40−45
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
−106%
|
35−40
+106%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−121%
|
95−100
+121%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−100%
|
18−20
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 28
−114%
|
60−65
+114%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
−114%
|
30−33
+114%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
This is how T500 Mobile and RX 6400 compete in popular games:
- RX 6400 is 122% faster in 1080p
- RX 6400 is 100% faster in 1440p
- RX 6400 is 106% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.25 | 18.53 |
| Recency | 2 December 2020 | 19 January 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 6 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 18 Watt | 53 Watt |
T500 Mobile has 194% lower power consumption.
RX 6400, on the other hand, has a 125% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 6400 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro T500 Mobile in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro T500 Mobile is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 6400 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
