OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

NVIDIA RTX 500 Ada Generation Laptop review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£1,370VRAM:4 GBMemory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):35 W

NVIDIA RTX 500 Ada Generation Laptop Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 1 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

NVIDIA RTX 500 Ada Generation Laptop
5.9/10

Overall score

Score
5.9/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 90% of models
Score components

40%

5.0

Technical score

25%

5.0

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

?

Sentiment scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.8, the mark of a weaker model in this category

â–¼Worse than 90% of graphics cards
5.1

Value for money

Value for money
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

3.3

Price

â–¼Worse than 99%
5.0

Technical score

Technical score
5.0/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

44%

3.6

Performance

24%

2.5

Memory

12%

8.8

Power

11%

9.5

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 83%
5.0

Reviews score

Reviews score
5.0/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 89% of models

5.0

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.9

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 89%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
  • nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
  • nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
  • nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
  • nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
  • nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
  • nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
  • nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
nvidia-rtx-500-ada-generation-laptop
Where to buy
    N/A~ £1,370
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.
Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card NVIDIA RTX 500 Ada Generation Laptop

Technical score
Technical score
5.0/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

44%

3.6

Performance

24%

2.5

Memory

12%

8.8

Power

11%

9.5

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

9.1

Connectivity

5.0
Reviews score
5.0
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
5.1/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components:

70%

5.9

Overall score

30%

3.3

Price

5.1
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
5,902 points
Market range: <4.1k points – >30.1k points
This graphics card scores 5,902 points in 3DMark Time Spy, which is lower than 83.4% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
3DMark Port Royal score
4,628 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 4,628 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 73.2% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
11,159 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 11,159 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 82.4% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
4,542 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 4,542 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 84.2% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
9.2 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 9.2 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 74.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
4 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 4 GB of VRAM, which is less than 87.7% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR6
This graphics card uses GDDR6 memory, which is newer than on 16.4% of graphics cards and equal to 40.3% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
64 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 64 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 96.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
128 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 128 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 92.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.8% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
16,000 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 16,000 MHz, which is slower than that of 63.3% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.3% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
4
This graphics card supports PCIe 4, which is newer than on 22.5% of graphics cards and equal to 50.5% of graphics cards.
PCIe lanes
x8
This graphics card uses x8 PCIe lanes, which is fewer than 75.9% of graphics cards and equal to 22.9% of graphics cards.
DirectX version
12 Ultimate
This graphics card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate, which is more advanced than on 22.8% of graphics cards and equal to 77.2% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.4
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more advanced than on 20.8% of graphics cards and equal to 79.2% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
4
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 4 displays, which is more than 9% of graphics cards and equal to 88.2% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
7680x4320
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320, which is higher than that of 9.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 90.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
?
DisplayPort version
1.4a
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.4a, which is more advanced than on 19.3% of graphics cards and equal to 46.3% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
32.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 32.4 Gbps, which is faster than on 56.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.9% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
35 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 35 W, which is lower than that of 97.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
60 W
Market range: <106 W – >365 W
This graphics card draws 60 W under peak load, which is lower than 96.2% of graphics cards and equal to 0.2% of graphics cards.
Recommended PSU wattage
?
Board power limit
60 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 60 W, which is lower than that of 96.2% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
47.5 W
Show more
Size
?
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
?
Weight
?
Show more

NVIDIA RTX 500 Ada Generation Laptop vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 83.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (35 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    35 W vs 215 W
  • 20% smaller process node
    This graphics card uses a smaller manufacturing process than the average graphics card (4 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    4 nm vs 5 nm
  • 72.7% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (60 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    60 W vs 220 W
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • Supports virtual GPU
    This graphics card supports virtual GPU features, the average graphics card does not.
  • 75% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (3 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    3 W vs 12 W
  • 72.7% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (60 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    60 W vs 220 W
  • 14.3% faster VRAM clock
    This graphics card has a higher VRAM clock than the average graphics card (2000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz). The average graphics card runs its VRAM at 1,750 MHz.
    2,000 MHz vs 1,750 MHz
  • 20% smaller process node
    This graphics card uses a smaller manufacturing process than the average graphics card (4 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    4 nm vs 5 nm
  • Supports virtual GPU
    This graphics card supports virtual GPU features, the average graphics card does not.
  • 83.7% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (35 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    35 W vs 215 W
  • 72.7% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (60 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    60 W vs 220 W
  • 75% lower idle power draw
    This graphics card has a lower idle power draw than the average graphics card (3 W vs 12 W). The average graphics card has an idle power draw of 12 W.
    3 W vs 12 W
  • 72.7% lower peak power draw
    This graphics card has a lower peak power draw than the average graphics card (60 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a peak power draw of 220 W.
    60 W vs 220 W
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 24 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    16 vs 40
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 30.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models

    5.0

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.0 vs 7.2
  • 24 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    16 vs 40
  • 71.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (128 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    128 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 65.7% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (129.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    129.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 19.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2025 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,025 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 30.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    5.0/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 89% of models

    5.0

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.9

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 video review, counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    5.0 vs 7.2
  • 44.5% worse value for money
    NVIDIA RTX 500 Ada Generation Laptop has worse value for money than the average graphics card (5.13 vs 7.4).
    5.13 vs 7.41
  • 2.63x more expensive
    NVIDIA RTX 500 Ada Generation Laptop is more expensive than the average graphics card (£1,370 vs £520).
    £1,370 vs £520
  • 24 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    16 vs 40
  • 120 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (64 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    64 vs 184
  • 24 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (16 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    16 vs 40
  • 65.7% lower texture rate
    This graphics card has a lower texture rate than the average graphics card (129.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s). The average graphics card has a texture rate of 378 GTexel/s.
    129.6 GTexel/s vs 378 GTexel/s
  • 19.2% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (2025 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    2,025 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 59.8% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (64.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    64.8 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 32 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (32 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    32 vs 64
  • 22.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (1,485 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    1,485 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 80 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (64 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    64 vs 144
  • 59.3% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (9.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    9.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 50.7% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (11,159 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    11,159 points vs 22,638 points
  • 60.1% lower gaming score
    This graphics card has a lower gaming score than the average graphics card (5,902 points vs 14,779 points). The average graphics card has a gaming score of 14,779 points.
    5,902 points vs 14,779 points
  • 49.4% lower ray tracing score
    This graphics card has a lower ray tracing score than the average graphics card (4,628 points vs 9,148 points). The average graphics card has a ray tracing score of 9,148 points.
    4,628 points vs 9,148 points
  • 62.4% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (4,542 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    4,542 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 2,304 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (2048 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    2,048 vs 4,352
  • 8 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (4 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    4 GB vs 12 GB
  • 71.4% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (128 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    128 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    64 bit vs 192 bit
  • 15.8% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (16,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    16,000 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 50% smaller L2 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L2 cache than the average graphics card (12 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    12 MB vs 24 MB
  • Fewer PCIe lanes
    This graphics card has fewer PCIe lanes than the average graphics card (x8 vs x16). The average graphics card has x16 PCIe lanes.
    x8 vs x16
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (frame generation vs multi frame generation).
    frame generation vs multi frame generation
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.7 vs 6.8).
    6.7 vs 6.8
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (2.1 vs 2.1a).
    2.1 vs 2.1a
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265/AV1 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • 8 °C higher load temperature
    This graphics card has a higher load temperature than the average graphics card (75 °C vs 67 °C). The average graphics card has a load temperature of 67 °C.
    75 °C vs 67 °C
  • 8 °C higher idle temperature
    This graphics card has a higher idle temperature than the average graphics card (45 °C vs 37 °C). The average graphics card has an idle temperature of 37 °C.
    45 °C vs 37 °C
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

7.0
Slap Tech
≈ estimated
16/12/2024
Hands-on review · gaming, retro games and battery tests
Verdict
NVIDIA RTX 500 Ada Generation Laptop is a competent productivity machine that handles gaming only at lower resolutions.
8.0
Slap Tech
≈ estimated
17/11/2024
Hands-on review · battery, build, gaming and performance tests
Verdict
NVIDIA RTX 500 Ada Generation Laptop is a lightweight, capable choice for students and casual gamers, though the price is high.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about NVIDIA RTX 500 Ada Generation Laptop

  • Significantly faster than integrated GPUs, making it a viable entry-level professional option.
  • Efficient power consumption (35W - 60W TGP), ideal for thin and light workstations.
  • Supports modern AI features, including DLSS 3 and 4th Generation Tensor cores.
  • Capable of handling AAA games at 1080p on medium-to-high settings, especially with DLSS enabled.
  • Major generative AI performance boost over previous-generation workstation cards.

What customers don't like about NVIDIA RTX 500 Ada Generation Laptop

  • Limited 4 GB VRAM is a bottleneck for heavy 4K video editing and modern AAA gaming.
  • Anemic 64-bit memory bus results in relatively low bandwidth (~128 GB/s).
  • Lacks ECC (Error-Correcting Code) memory, unlike higher-tier professional Ada cards.
  • Real-world performance can vary by up to 40% depending on the laptop's specific TGP and cooling setup.
  • Generally outperformed by mid-range consumer cards like the RTX 4060 for pure gaming tasks.

Verdict

The NVIDIA RTX 500 Ada Generation is an entry-level professional laptop GPU built on the 5nm Ada Lovelace architecture, featuring 2,048 CUDA cores, 64 fourth-generation Tensor cores, and 16 third-generation RT cores. It offers a base clock of 1485 MHz with a boost up to 2025 MHz, delivering approximately 8.29 TFLOPS of FP32 performance within a highly efficient TGP range of 35W to 60W. Main pros include advanced AI acceleration—providing up to 154 TOPS of INT8 performance for generative AI and photo editing—alongside support for DLSS 3 and AV1 encoding for modern creative workflows. However, notable cons include its limited 4 GB of GDDR6 VRAM and a narrow 64-bit memory bus, which restricts memory bandwidth to 128 GB/s and makes it less suitable for high-resolution 3D rendering or memory-intensive tasks.

Compare NVIDIA RTX 500 Ada Generation Laptop with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of NVIDIA RTX 500 Ada Generation Laptop and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found