AMD FirePro D500 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only common benchmark between the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and the AMD FirePro D500 is Geekbench Vulkan. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 20971, while the AMD FirePro D500 scores 18533. The difference translates to a 13.2% advantage for the Quadro M4000M. This is a decisive margin in a single API workload, indicating that NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture handles Vulkan compute and graphics tasks more efficiently than AMD’s GCN 1.0 design in this pairing.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro M4000M’s average benchmark score is 20480. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile at 20534 (delta -0.3%), the Intel Arc B570 at 20556 (delta -0.4%), the Intel Arc A750 at 20582 (delta -0.5%), and the AMD Radeon R9 M390X at 20662 (delta -0.9%). Essentially, the Quadro M4000M sits within 1% of these modern and semi-modern competitors, meaning its performance profile is remarkably close to that cluster of GPUs. The percentile ranking of 65 places it above the median of all GPUs in the database.

For the AMD FirePro D500, the average benchmark score is 18533. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon RX 560X at 18626 (delta -0.5%), the Intel Arc A770M at 18383 (delta 0.8%), the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT at 18685 (delta -0.8%), and the AMD Radeon RX 460 at 18373 (delta 0.9%). The FirePro D500 is thus bracketed by a mix of entry-level and mid-range parts, with deltas under 1% in either direction. Its percentile of 62 is slightly lower than the Quadro’s 65.

The head-to-head result is clear: the Quadro M4000M wins the only shared test, and it does so by a healthy 13.2%. The FirePro D500’s Vulkan score is not only lower, but its overall average benchmark sits 1947 points below the Quadro’s average. The data shows a consistent performance gap favoring NVIDIA in this comparison.

One notable observation from the nearest rival lists: the Quadro M4000M’s closest competitors include the GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, a much newer part, yet the Quadro is only 0.3% behind it. The FirePro D500, by contrast, trails its closest rival, the Radeon RX 560X, by 0.5%. This suggests the Quadro is punching above its generation, while the FirePro is more closely aligned with its age.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is the stronger performer. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 13.2%, holds a higher average benchmark score (20480 vs 18533), and ranks higher in the percentile distribution (65th vs 62nd percentile). For any workload that relies on Vulkan, the Quadro M4000M is the clear choice.

The AMD FirePro D500, despite having more shading units (1536 vs 1280), more TMUs (96 vs 80), and a wider memory bus (384 bit vs 256 bit), fails to translate those specifications into superior benchmark results. Its lower clock configuration and older GCN 1.0 architecture likely contribute to this outcome, but the database only records the scores, not the causal factors. The FirePro D500’s advantage lies elsewhere: it offers more memory bandwidth (243.8 GB/s vs 160.4 GB/s) and a larger memory bus, which could benefit specific bandwidth-heavy tasks, but no benchmark data in the database confirms such an advantage.

For users prioritizing raw compute and graphics performance as measured by Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro M4000M is the recommended pick. For users who require the FirePro D500’s specific display output configuration (6x mini-DisplayPort and 1x SDI) or its higher memory bandwidth, the FirePro D500 may still be relevant, but the performance data in the database does not favor it.

The production status for both GPUs is end-of-life, so neither is a new purchase option. The Quadro M4000M’s successor is the Quadro Pascal-M, while the FirePro D500’s successor is the Radeon Instinct. The Quadro M4000M was released on 2015-08-17, and the FirePro D500 on 2014-01-17, making the FirePro older by roughly a year and a half.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only shared benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 20971 versus the AMD FirePro D500’s 18533, a 13.2% advantage.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro M4000M has an average benchmark score of 20480, while the FirePro D500 has an average of 18533. The Quadro is ahead by 1947 points.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each GPU?

A: For the Quadro M4000M, the closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile at 20534 (delta -0.3%). For the FirePro D500, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 560X at 18626 (delta -0.5%).

Q: How do their percentiles compare?

A: The Quadro M4000M sits at the 65th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro D500 sits at the 62nd percentile.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro D500 has 1536 shading units, compared to the Quadro M4000M’s 1280 shading units. Despite this, the Quadro scores higher in the shared benchmark.

Q: What are their production statuses?

A: Both GPUs are end-of-life. The Quadro M4000M has a successor in the Quadro Pascal-M, and the FirePro D500 has a successor in the Radeon Instinct.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across almost every major specification. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M uses the GM204 chip with the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the AMD FirePro D500 uses the Tahiti chip with GCN 1.0. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ: the Quadro has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the FirePro has 4,313 million transistors on a 352 mm² die. Transistor density is 13.1M per mm² for the Quadro and 12.3M per mm² for the FirePro.

Clock speeds vary significantly. The Quadro M4000M has a base clock of 975 MHz and a boost clock of 1013 MHz, with memory clocked at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The FirePro D500 has no recorded base or boost clocks, but its memory runs at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The Quadro M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro D500 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 384 bit bus, yielding 243.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro’s wider bus gives it a 52% bandwidth advantage, though the Quadro has more total memory.

Compute resources differ: the Quadro M4000M has 1280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The FirePro D500 has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro’s pixel rate is 64.83 GPixel/s versus the FirePro’s 23.20 GPixel/s, and the texture rates are 81.04 GTexel/s versus 69.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 2.593 TFLOPS for the Quadro and 2.227 TFLOPS for the FirePro.

Power and physical characteristics differ. The Quadro M4000M has a TDP of 100 W, uses an MXM Module slot, and has no power connectors. The FirePro D500 has a TDP of 274 W, is dual-slot, requires a 600 W suggested PSU, and measures 279 mm (11 inches) in length. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16.

Display outputs differ. The Quadro M4000M is portable-device dependent, while the FirePro D500 offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI. API support also varies: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is fundamental. The Quadro M4000M is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture, a design that emphasizes efficiency and high clock scaling. The FirePro D500 is built on AMD’s GCN 1.0, an older compute-oriented architecture that trades efficiency for raw throughput in certain workloads.

The process nodes are identical (28 nm at TSMC), but the die designs differ. The Quadro’s GM204 die is 398 mm², larger than the FirePro’s Tahiti die at 352 mm². Despite the larger die, the Quadro packs more transistors (5,200 million vs 4,313 million), resulting in a higher transistor density of 13.1M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm². This suggests a more compact and dense design in NVIDIA’s implementation.

The generations reflect different design philosophies. The Quadro M4000M belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation, succeeding Quadro Kepler-M and preceding Quadro Pascal-M. The FirePro D500 belongs to the FirePro Data Center (Dx00) generation, succeeding FirePro Terascale and preceding Radeon Instinct. The Quadro’s newer release date (2015-08-17 vs 2014-01-17) aligns with its more modern architecture.

Feature-wise, neither GPU includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores; both are pure rasterization designs. The Quadro’s Vulkan support is more recent (1.4 vs 1.2.170), and its DirectX support is higher (12_1 vs 11_1). The FirePro’s GCN 1.0 architecture was designed for compute-heavy tasks, but the benchmark data does not show a corresponding advantage. The Quadro’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture delivers higher pixel fill rates (64.83 GPixel/s vs 23.20 GPixel/s) and higher FP32 throughput (2.593 TFLOPS vs 2.227 TFLOPS), which likely explains its benchmark superiority.

The power envelope is a stark contrast: the Quadro M4000M draws 100 W, while the FirePro D500 draws 274 W. This 174 W difference makes the Quadro far more power-efficient, which is a critical factor for portable or constrained systems. The FirePro’s higher power draw and dual-slot design suggest it was intended for workstation towers with ample cooling, while the Quadro’s MXM Module form factor targets mobile workstations.