GPU Comparison

NVIDIA’s RTX A500 Mobile and Quadro GV100 sit at opposite ends of the professional GPU spectrum. The A500 Mobile is a 30 W IGP-class part built for thin-and-light workstations, while the GV100 is a 250 W dual-slot giant designed for maximum compute throughput. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, but the two cards are not really competing for the same buyer. Here is how they stack up.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two available head-to-head benchmark results are both Geekbench runs, and the Quadro GV100 wins both outright. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GV100 scores 150,004 against the RTX A500 Mobile’s 41,263. That is a delta of -72.5% for the A500 Mobile, meaning the GV100 delivers roughly 3.6 times the OpenCL score. The gap is nearly identical in Geekbench Vulkan: the GV100 posts 139,526 while the A500 Mobile manages 37,873, a -72.9% delta. In practical terms, if a workload is compute-bound and can use OpenCL or Vulkan, the GV100 is in a completely different performance class.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this. The RTX A500 Mobile’s average benchmark score is 39,568, while the Quadro GV100’s average is 35,520. Note that the GV100’s average is actually lower than its Geekbench scores because it also has several Passmark results that drag the mean down. Those Passmark numbers are telling in a different way: the GV100 scores 19,650 in Passmark G3D but only 9,069 in Passmark GPU Compute, and its DirectX 9/10/11/12 scores range from 84 to 207. This suggests the GV100 is far stronger in raw compute than in legacy DirectX rasterization, which is consistent with its Volta architecture design.

Looking at the percentile ranks, the RTX A500 Mobile sits at the 82nd percentile of all GPUs, while the GV100 sits at the 80th. That is a narrow difference, and it shows that the A500 Mobile is not a weak card for its class, it just happens to be facing a much larger, much more power-hungry part here. The rival comparisons confirm this. The A500 Mobile’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro 575 with an average score of 39,555 and a delta of 0%, meaning the two are essentially tied. The Radeon Pro WX 7100 is 1.2% faster, and the Radeon Pro 580 is 1.9% faster. The A500 Mobile is right in that mid-range pack.

For the GV100, its nearest rivals are a different story. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti Mobile is just 0.2% faster, the AMD Radeon Pro Duo is 0.9% slower, the NVIDIA T1000 is 2.1% slower, and the NVIDIA A2 is 2.4% faster. So the GV100’s average score is roughly on par with a modern mobile RTX 50-series part, despite being from an older generation. The performance per watt is clearly worse, but the raw throughput is still competitive.

The Verdict

If your workload is dominated by OpenCL or Vulkan compute, the Quadro GV100 is the clear winner. It beats the RTX A500 Mobile by 72.5% in OpenCL and 72.9% in Vulkan. That is not a marginal difference; it is a multiple. The GV100 also offers 32 GB of HBM2 memory versus 4 GB of GDDR6, which matters for any dataset that exceeds the A500 Mobile’s frame buffer. The GV100’s 868.4 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s is a 9x advantage, and that alone can decide large-matrix or simulation workloads.

However, the RTX A500 Mobile is not without reason to exist. It is a 30 W part with an IGP slot width and no power connectors, meaning it is designed for portable workstations where the GV100 physically cannot fit. The GV100 is 267 mm long, dual-slot, and requires a 600 W power supply. If you need a workstation GPU that runs off the motherboard alone, the A500 Mobile is the only one of these two that qualifies.

The data also shows that the A500 Mobile has a higher percentile rank (82 vs 80) despite the massive compute deficit. That is because the percentile is relative to all GPUs, and the A500 Mobile’s efficiency and feature set put it above many older desktop parts. For a builder choosing between these two, the decision is simple: if you have the chassis, power budget, and cooling for the GV100, and your software uses OpenCL or Vulkan, take it. If you are constrained to a thin-and-light laptop or a low-profile system, the A500 Mobile is the only viable option, and its benchmark scores are respectable for that niche.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro GV100 wins every head-to-head benchmark listed, so the use-case split is about workload type and physical constraints. The GV100 is the pick for high-throughput compute: OpenCL and Vulkan workloads that can scale across 5120 shading units and 640 tensor cores. Its 16.66 TFLOPS FP32 and 33.32 TFLOPS FP16 (2:1) are roughly 2.6x and 5.3x the A500 Mobile’s respective numbers. If your software is written for CUDA or OpenCL and can use HBM2’s massive bandwidth, the GV100 will finish jobs in a fraction of the time.

The RTX A500 Mobile wins on portability and integration. It is an IGP-class chip with no external power connector, so it fits in systems where the GV100 is physically impossible. It also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the GV100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1). That matters for any modern DirectX 12 Ultimate feature, ray tracing, mesh shaders, variable rate shading, though the A500 Mobile’s 16 RT cores are modest. The A500 Mobile also has a newer PCIe interface (4.0 x8 vs 3.0 x16), which can reduce transfer bottlenecks in systems that support it.

For a specific workload like machine learning inference on small models, the A500 Mobile’s 64 tensor cores and 6.296 TFLOPS FP16 might be enough if the model fits in 4 GB. But for training or larger models, the GV100’s 640 tensor cores and 32 GB HBM2 are in a different league. Similarly, for rendering, the GV100’s 208.3 GPixel/s pixel rate and 520.6 GTexel/s texture rate dwarf the A500 Mobile’s 49.18 GPixel/s and 98.37 GTexel/s.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro GV100 scores 150,004, which is 72.5% higher than the RTX A500 Mobile’s 41,263.

Q: Is the RTX A500 Mobile faster in any benchmark?

A: No. In the two head-to-head benchmarks available (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), the Quadro GV100 wins both. The A500 Mobile has zero wins in the head-to-head data.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX A500 Mobile has an average benchmark score of 39,568, while the Quadro GV100 averages 35,520. The GV100’s average is pulled down by its Passmark DirectX scores, which are low (84-207).

Q: Can the RTX A500 Mobile fit in a standard desktop?

A: The data describes it as IGP slot width with no power connectors, meaning it is designed for integrated or low-profile use. The GV100, in contrast, is dual-slot, 267 mm long, and requires a 600 W power supply.

Q: Which card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: Only the RTX A500 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The Quadro GV100 is limited to DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro GV100 has 868.4 GB/s bandwidth via 4096-bit HBM2, while the RTX A500 Mobile has 96.00 GB/s via a 64-bit GDDR6 bus. That is a roughly 9x difference in favor of the GV100.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different NVIDIA architectures and different foundries. The RTX A500 Mobile uses the GA107S chip on an 8 nm Samsung process, with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The Quadro GV100 uses the GV100 chip on a 12 nm TSMC process, with 21,100 million transistors on an 815 mm² die, for a density of 25.9M per mm². The A500 Mobile is the more modern, denser design; the GV100 is older and larger.

Architecturally, the A500 Mobile is Ampere, while the GV100 is Volta. The A500 Mobile has 2048 shading units, 64 TMUs, 32 ROPs, 16 RT cores, and 64 tensor cores. The GV100 has 5120 shading units, 320 TMUs, 128 ROPs, no RT cores, and 640 tensor cores. The absence of RT cores on the GV100 is notable, it cannot do hardware ray tracing, while the A500 Mobile can, even if only with 16 cores. The GV100’s FP16 throughput is 2:1 relative to FP32 (33.32 vs 16.66 TFLOPS), meaning it is heavily optimized for mixed-precision compute. The A500 Mobile’s FP16 is 1:1 with FP32 (6.296 TFLOPS), so no such advantage exists there.

The production status for both is end-of-life, but their release dates are far apart. The GV100 launched on 2018-03-26, and the A500 Mobile on 2022-03-21. The A500 Mobile’s predecessor is Quadro Turing-M, and its successor is Ada-MW. The GV100’s predecessor is Quadro Pascal, and its successor is Quadro Turing.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is memory. The RTX A500 Mobile has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro GV100 has 32 GB of HBM2 on a 4096-bit bus with 868.4 GB/s bandwidth. That is an 8x capacity difference and a 9x bandwidth difference.

Shading resources differ by a similar margin. The GV100 has 5120 shading units versus 2048, 320 TMUs versus 64, and 128 ROPs versus 32. The GV100’s pixel rate is 208.3 GPixel/s versus 49.18 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 520.6 GTexel/s versus 98.37 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 16.66 TFLOPS versus 6.296 TFLOPS, and FP16 is 33.32 TFLOPS versus 6.296 TFLOPS.

Power and physical specs are where the A500 Mobile fights back. It is 30 W TDP with IGP slot width and no power connectors. The GV100 is 250 W, dual-slot, 267 mm long, 111 mm tall, and requires a 1x 8-pin power connector and a 600 W suggested PSU. The A500 Mobile’s bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8; the GV100 is PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the A500 Mobile is “Portable Device Dependent,” while the GV100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a.

Clock speeds favor the GV100 as well. Its base clock is 1132 MHz and boost is 1627 MHz, versus 832 MHz base and 1537 MHz boost on the A500 Mobile. Memory clocks are not directly comparable, the A500 Mobile runs at 1500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) while the GV100 runs at 848 MHz (1696 Mbps effective), but the GV100’s massive bus width compensates entirely. The A500 Mobile supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4; the GV100 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. OpenGL 4.6 is common to both.