AMD FirePro D500 vs NVIDIA Tesla M4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Benchmark comparisons between the AMD FirePro D500 and NVIDIA Tesla M4 are complicated by their differing benchmark suites. The FirePro D500 was recorded in the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 18533, while the Tesla M4 was measured using Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 16932. While these represent different API workloads, the positioning relative to their peer groups offers useful context.

The FirePro D500 sits comfortably above the Tesla M4 in raw percentile ranking. The AMD card lands in the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla M4 reaches only the 60th percentile. This 2-percentile gap signals that the FirePro D500 edges ahead when considering overall database standings.

Looking at nearest rivals, the FirePro D500 trades blows with a tight cluster of GPUs. It trails the AMD Radeon RX 560X by 0.5%, sits 0.8% ahead of the Intel Arc A770M, falls 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon Pro 5700 XT, and leads the AMD Radeon RX 460 by 0.9%. These deltas are remarkably small, indicating the FirePro D500's Vulkan performance is right in the middle of a competitive pack.

The Tesla M4 shows a similar pattern in its OpenCL results. It trails the AMD Radeon HD 7970M by 0.5%, falls 0.6% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 690, leads the NVIDIA T400 4 GB by 0.8%, and sits 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX 7600 XT. Again, the margins are minimal, but the Tesla M4's score of 16932 places it slightly below its closest rivals in the database.

In head-to-head terms, the FirePro D500's higher absolute score (18533 vs 16932) represents roughly a 9.5% gap in favor of the AMD part. However, this comparison mixes Vulkan and OpenCL workloads, so the difference should not be read as a universal performance advantage. The recorded data shows the FirePro D500 delivers a stronger single benchmark result, while the Tesla M4 counters with superior efficiency metrics that show up elsewhere.

Neither GPU holds a decisive victory in direct benchmark competition. The wins column shows zero for both cards, reflecting that the database has no shared test where both were measured under identical conditions. The performance picture must be assembled from their respective benchmark contexts and architectural characteristics.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD FirePro D500 uses the Tahiti chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Tesla M4 employs the GM206 chip based on Maxwell 2.0. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The FirePro D500 packs 4,313 million transistors onto a 352 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The Tesla M4 uses far fewer transistors at 2,940 million, occupying a smaller 228 mm² die with a slightly higher density of 12.9 million per square millimeter. This density advantage for NVIDIA reflects a more compact design that still achieves comparable compute throughput.

Compute resources diverge significantly. The FirePro D500 fields 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Tesla M4 counters with 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and the same 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer cores, the Tesla M4 achieves nearly identical FP32 throughput: 2.195 TFLOPS versus the FirePro D500's 2.227 TFLOPS. This shows the Maxwell architecture's efficiency advantage, extracting comparable floating-point work from roughly one-third fewer shading units.

Memory architectures could hardly be more different. The FirePro D500 uses a 384-bit bus with 3 GB of GDDR5, delivering 243.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Tesla M4 narrows to a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, producing only 88.00 GB/s. The bandwidth gap is substantial, with the AMD card offering roughly 2.8 times the memory throughput. Clock speeds tell the rest of the memory story: the FirePro D500 runs its memory at 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), while the Tesla M4 pushes 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective), but the wider bus makes the AMD advantage decisive.

The Tesla M4 has explicit boost clocks of 872 MHz base and 1072 MHz boost, while the FirePro D500's clocks are not recorded in the database for base or boost. Pixel throughput favors the Tesla M4 at 34.30 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s for the FirePro D500. Texture rates are nearly identical: 69.60 GTexel/s for AMD and 68.61 GTexel/s for NVIDIA.

Power consumption reveals the starkest architectural contrast. The FirePro D500 draws 274 W and requires a 600 W suggested power supply, occupying a dual-slot form factor. The Tesla M4 sips just 50 W, needs only a 250 W suggested PSU, and fits in a single slot. This 5.5-fold power difference underscores how Maxwell 2.0 prioritized efficiency, while GCN 1.0 leaned into raw throughput at the cost of power.

API support differs in version levels. The FirePro D500 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Tesla M4 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vulkan version gap is notable, with NVIDIA offering a more recent specification.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro D500 wins decisively in memory bandwidth scenarios. Its 243.8 GB/s throughput, driven by the 384-bit bus, suits workloads that stream large datasets, such as high-resolution image processing or compute kernels that repeatedly access substantial buffers. The 3 GB capacity, while smaller than the Tesla's 4 GB, is paired with bandwidth that allows faster data movement for the data that fits.

The FirePro D500 also wins on raw shading throughput. With 1536 shading units and 96 TMUs, it offers 50% more shaders and 50% more texture units than the Tesla M4. Its FP32 output of 2.227 TFLOPS edges past the Tesla's 2.195 TFLOPS, making it the choice for shader-heavy rendering workloads that can utilize the wider execution width.

Display output is another clear win for the AMD card. The FirePro D500 provides 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs plus 1x SDI, enabling multi-monitor professional visualization setups. The Tesla M4 has no display outputs at all, positioning it strictly as a headless compute accelerator.

The NVIDIA Tesla M4 wins decisively on power efficiency and thermal footprint. At 50 W versus 274 W, it delivers 2.195 TFLOPS while consuming less than one-fifth the power of the FirePro D500. This makes it suitable for dense server deployments, where power budgets and cooling constraints limit how many high-wattage cards can be installed.

The Tesla M4 also wins on pixel fill rate, producing 34.30 GPixel/s versus 23.20 GPixel/s for the AMD part. For rasterization-bound tasks that stress ROP throughput, the NVIDIA card has the advantage despite having identical ROP counts.

Form factor flexibility favors the Tesla M4. Its single-slot design allows more cards per chassis compared to the FirePro D500's dual-slot footprint. The suggested power supply of 250 W versus 600 W further highlights the Tesla's suitability for space-constrained or power-limited environments.

Memory capacity favors the Tesla M4, which offers 4 GB versus 3 GB. For workloads that need larger working sets but not necessarily extreme bandwidth, this extra gigabyte can be decisive.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro D500 | NVIDIA Tesla M4 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Chip | Tahiti | GM206 |

| Transistors | 4,313 million | 2,940 million |

| Die Size | 352 mm² | 228 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 12.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 872 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 1072 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective) | 1375 MHz (5.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 3 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 384 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 243.8 GB/s | 88.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 96 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 23.20 GPixel/s | 34.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 69.60 GTexel/s | 68.61 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.227 TFLOPS | 2.195 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 274 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | 600 W | 250 W |

| Display Outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, 1x SDI | No outputs |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2014-01-17 | 2015-11-09 |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD FirePro D500 produces 2.227 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, marginally ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M4's 2.195 TFLOPS. The difference is less than 1.5%, making compute throughput effectively a tie.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The FirePro D500 has a 384-bit bus with 243.8 GB/s bandwidth and 3 GB capacity. The Tesla M4 uses a 128-bit bus with 88.00 GB/s bandwidth and 4 GB capacity. The AMD card offers roughly 2.8 times the bandwidth, while the NVIDIA card provides 33% more capacity.

Q: Which card is better for power-constrained environments?

A: The Tesla M4 draws only 50 W with a 250 W suggested PSU, compared to the FirePro D500's 274 W and 600 W suggested PSU. The Tesla also occupies a single slot versus dual-slot for the AMD card, making it far more suitable for dense deployments.

Q: Can either card output video signals?

A: Only the FirePro D500 has display outputs, offering 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 and 1x SDI. The Tesla M4 has no display outputs and is designed exclusively as a headless compute accelerator.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each?

A: The FirePro D500 ranks in the 62nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Tesla M4 sits in the 60th percentile. This places the AMD card slightly higher in overall database standings.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The FirePro D500 is 0.5% behind the RX 560X, 0.8% ahead of the Arc A770M, 0.8% behind the Radeon Pro 5700 XT, and 0.9% ahead of the RX 460. The Tesla M4 is 0.5% behind the HD 7970M, 0.6% behind the GTX 690, 0.8% ahead of the T400 4 GB, and 0.9% behind the RX 7600 XT.

The Verdict

The AMD FirePro D500 is the choice for professionals who need display output and memory bandwidth. Its 243.8 GB/s throughput, 6x mini-DisplayPort outputs, and 1536 shading units make it suited for visualization workstations where multiple monitors and texture-heavy workloads are the norm. The 62nd percentile ranking and Vulkan score of 18533 confirm it holds its own among contemporary GPUs.

The NVIDIA Tesla M4 is the choice for compute deployments where power efficiency and density matter most. At 50 W with a single-slot design and 250 W suggested PSU, it enables configurations that the FirePro D500 simply cannot match. Its 4 GB memory capacity and higher pixel rate (34.30 GPixel/s) provide advantages for certain workloads, even if its overall bandwidth is limited.

For workloads that are bandwidth-bound, the FirePro D500 is the clear winner. For workloads constrained by power, space, or thermal limits, the Tesla M4 dominates. The 60th percentile ranking for the Tesla and 62nd for the AMD card show they occupy similar tiers of overall performance, but their design goals diverge sharply.

The data suggests no universal winner. The FirePro D500 offers nearly equal FP32 throughput (2.227 TFLOPS) with far greater memory bandwidth and display capabilities, but at 274 W and dual-slot size. The Tesla M4 delivers 2.195 TFLOPS with a fraction of the power draw and a more compact footprint, but sacrifices memory bandwidth and all display functionality. Buyers should match the card to the workload: visualization and bandwidth-intensive tasks favor AMD, while efficiency and density favor NVIDIA.