NVIDIA Quadro P520 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro P520 and NVIDIA Quadro M500M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G2D Mark, PassMark - G3D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro P520
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 27% higher core clock speed: 1303 MHz vs 1029 MHz
- Around 33% higher boost clock speed: 1493 MHz vs 1124 MHz
- 1328.7x more texture fill rate: 23.89 GTexel/s vs 17.98 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 3.3x more memory clock speed: 6000 MHz vs 1800 MHz
- Around 29% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 243 vs 188
- Around 80% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2105 vs 1170
- Around 24% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 7368 vs 5935
- Around 62% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 3527 vs 2174
- Around 62% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 3527 vs 2174
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3566 vs 1729
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3566 vs 1729
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 27 May 2019 vs 27 April 2016 |
Core clock speed | 1303 MHz vs 1029 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1493 MHz vs 1124 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 23.89 GTexel/s vs 17.98 GTexel / s |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz vs 1800 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 243 vs 188 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2105 vs 1170 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 7368 vs 5935 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3527 vs 2174 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3527 vs 2174 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3566 vs 1729 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3566 vs 1729 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M500M
- 60x lower typical power consumption: 30 Watt vs 1800 million
- Around 36% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3122 vs 2295
- Around 36% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3122 vs 2295
Specifications (specs) | |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt vs 1800 million |
Benchmarks | |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3122 vs 2295 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3122 vs 2295 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro P520
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro M500M
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | NVIDIA Quadro P520 | NVIDIA Quadro M500M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G2D Mark | 243 | 188 |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2105 | 1170 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 7368 | 5935 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3527 | 2174 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3527 | 2174 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3566 | 1729 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3566 | 1729 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2295 | 3122 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2295 | 3122 |
Compare specifications (specs)
NVIDIA Quadro P520 | NVIDIA Quadro M500M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | Pascal | Maxwell |
Code name | GP108 | GM108 |
Launch date | 27 May 2019 | 27 April 2016 |
Place in performance rating | 766 | 1073 |
Type | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1493 MHz | 1124 MHz |
Core clock speed | 1303 MHz | 1029 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 23.89 GFLOPS | |
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 11.94 GFLOPS | |
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 764.4 GFLOPS | |
Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
Pixel fill rate | 23.89 GPixel/s | |
Texture fill rate | 23.89 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 1800 million | 30 Watt |
Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Height | PCIe 3.0 x16 | |
Laptop size | large | large |
Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.1 | 12 |
OpenCL | 1.2 | |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bandwidth | 40.10 GB/s | 14.4 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 1800 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
Multi Monitor | ||
nView Display Management | ||
Optimus |