AMD FirePro W5130M vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database shows a clear, though not overwhelming, winner in this mobile workstation comparison. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M outperforms the AMD FirePro W5130M in the single recorded head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 5986 against 4904. That represents a 22.1% advantage for the NVIDIA part. The data suggests that users whose workloads depend on OpenCL compute performance should select the Quadro M500M, as it delivers substantially higher throughput in that specific metric.

However, the choice is not purely about raw compute speed. The AMD FirePro W5130M counters with a significantly wider memory bus and faster memory technology, which can matter for memory-bound tasks. The AMD part also carries a higher transistor count and larger die, indicating a more complex chip overall. For users who prioritize memory bandwidth or who work in DirectX 12 (11_1) environments, the AMD part may be the more appropriate pick, despite its lower OpenCL score.

The percentile data reinforces the distinction. The Quadro M500M sits at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro W5130M ranks at the 29th percentile. Both are near the lower end of the performance spectrum, but the NVIDIA part holds a modest edge in overall standing. The average benchmark score for the Quadro is 5604, while the AMD part averages 4904. That gap of 700 points aligns with the head-to-head result and confirms that, on aggregate, the NVIDIA solution is the faster of the two.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M wins the OpenCL head-to-head with a score of 5986, which is 22.1% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5130M's 4904.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of overall benchmark standing?

A: The Quadro M500M sits at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro W5130M sits at the 29th percentile. The Quadro's average benchmark score is 5604, compared to 4904 for the AMD part.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W5130M have any memory advantages?

A: Yes. The FirePro W5130M uses GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M500M uses DDR3 with a 64-bit bus, providing only 14.40 GB/s.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each GPU according to the database?

A: For the Quadro M500M, the nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M4000 (1.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (1.5% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (1.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (1.9% ahead). For the FirePro W5130M, rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (0.1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (0.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (0.5% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (0.5% behind).

Q: Which GPU has the higher shading unit count?

A: The AMD FirePro W5130M has 512 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M has 384.

Q: What is the release timeline for these two products?

A: The AMD FirePro W5130M was released on October 1, 2015, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M followed on April 26, 2016. Both are now end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The two mobile workstation GPUs come from different architectural lineages, and the data highlights fundamental design splits. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip, and belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. The AMD FirePro W5130M, by contrast, uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, part of the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, so the manufacturing node is identical, but the underlying designs diverge sharply.

Transistor counts and die sizes reveal the physical differences. The AMD part packs 1,500 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, while the NVIDIA part uses 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: the NVIDIA chip achieves 13.2 million transistors per mm², while the AMD chip manages 12.2 million per mm². The NVIDIA design packs transistors more tightly, but the AMD chip dedicates more overall silicon to compute resources.

The shading and texture resources also differ. The AMD FirePro W5130M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These numbers indicate that the AMD architecture is built for wider parallel execution, while the NVIDIA part runs leaner but at higher clocks. Neither part includes ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those features.

The interface and form factor also differ. The NVIDIA part uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and comes as an MXM Module, while the AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The NVIDIA card has no power connectors, and its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, whereas the AMD card's display outputs are not specified in the database.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for the two GPUs show several notable contrasts. Clock speeds favor the NVIDIA part: the Quadro M500M runs at a base of 1029 MHz and boosts to 1124 MHz, while the FirePro W5130M runs at a base of 900 MHz and boosts to 925 MHz. That is a 129 MHz advantage at base and a 199 MHz advantage at boost for the NVIDIA chip.

Memory configuration is where the AMD part takes the lead. The FirePro W5130M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M500M also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s. The memory clock differs accordingly: the AMD part runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the NVIDIA part runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. The AMD part's bandwidth advantage of roughly 4.4x is substantial and likely affects memory-heavy operations.

Compute rates also differ. The AMD FirePro W5130M achieves 14.80 GPixel/s pixel rate and 29.60 GTexel/s texture rate, while the Quadro M500M achieves 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s. In raw throughput rates, the AMD part is ahead. However, in FP32 compute, the AMD part reaches 947.2 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS for the NVIDIA part, a narrower gap of about 9.7%.

The API support shows a split. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD part has a higher DirectX feature level, while the NVIDIA part has a newer Vulkan version. Power draw is listed as 30 W for the NVIDIA part, while the AMD part's TDP is not specified in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M scores 5986, while the AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904. The NVIDIA part wins by a delta of 22.1%. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any recorded test, and it establishes the Quadro as the clear compute winner.

Context from the nearest rivals helps interpret this result. The Quadro M500M's average score of 5604 places it close to the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537, 1.2% difference), the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691, 1.5% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, 1.7% difference), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, 1.9% difference). The FirePro W5130M's average score of 4904 sits near the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901, 0.1% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893, 0.2% difference), the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929, 0.5% difference), and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931, 0.5% difference). The NVIDIA part competes with a slightly higher tier of GPUs, while the AMD part aligns with lower-tier parts.

The wins tally reflects the single test: the Quadro M500M has 1 win, and the FirePro W5130M has 0. The data does not include any other head-to-head tests, so the OpenCL result stands as the sole recorded comparison. This limits the scope of the analysis, but within that scope, the NVIDIA part dominates.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M wins in compute performance, as measured by OpenCL. Its 22.1% lead over the FirePro W5130M in the Geekbench OpenCL test is the headline result, and its higher clock speeds (1029 MHz base, 1124 MHz boost versus 900 MHz base, 925 MHz boost) support that advantage. The Quadro also holds a higher percentile ranking (32nd versus 29th) and a higher average benchmark score (5604 versus 4904). For tasks that rely on OpenCL acceleration, the NVIDIA part is the clear pick.

The AMD FirePro W5130M wins in memory architecture. Its GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 64.00 GB/s, compared to the Quadro's DDR3 on a 64-bit bus at 14.40 GB/s. That is a massive bandwidth advantage, and it suggests that the AMD part would handle memory-intensive workloads, such as large texture sets or data streaming, more effectively. The AMD part also has more shading units (512 versus 384), more TMUs (32 versus 16), and more ROPs (16 versus 8), which could translate to better fill-rate performance in certain rendering scenarios.

The AMD part also wins on pixel and texture throughput, with 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s versus the Quadro's 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s. Its FP32 compute of 947.2 GFLOPS edges out the Quadro's 863.2 GFLOPS, though the OpenCL benchmark tells a different story. The AMD part's DirectX 12 (11_1) support is also a step above the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0), which may matter for applications that use newer DirectX features.

In practical terms, the choice depends on workload. Compute-heavy OpenCL applications favor the Quadro M500M. Memory-bandwidth-bound or fill-rate-bound tasks favor the FirePro W5130M. The Quadro's higher percentile and average score suggest it is the safer overall pick, but the AMD part's memory subsystem is a compelling counterpoint for specific use cases. The data does not include enough head-to-head tests to declare a comprehensive winner, so the verdict rests on the single OpenCL result and the supporting specification differences.