AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between the two cards. The AMD FirePro W600 takes the only head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 6223 against 5986 for the NVIDIA Quadro M500M. That is a 4% margin, a modest but real advantage for the AMD part in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL.

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M, however, has one additional benchmark in the database that the FirePro W600 lacks: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5222. Since the FirePro W600 has no recorded Vulkan result, the M500M is the only card of the two with a demonstrated Vulkan capability in the database. This gives the NVIDIA card a distinct edge in any workflow that relies on Vulkan compute or rendering, simply because the data confirms it can run that workload and the AMD card has no recorded result to compare.

For use-case splitting, the FirePro W600 is the stronger choice for OpenCL-heavy tasks. Its 6223 OpenCL score ranks at the 36th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the M500M sits at the 32nd percentile. The FirePro also has a higher average benchmark score overall: 6223 versus 5604 for the M500M, a difference driven by the M500M's lower OpenCL result and its Vulkan score pulling the average down. The M500M's Vulkan result, however, makes it the only option here for applications that specifically target that API.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and are built for different physical environments. The AMD FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2 million transistors per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro M500M uses the GM108S chip on Maxwell architecture, also 28 nm TSMC, but with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a higher density of 13.2 million per mm².

Memory is a major differentiator. The FirePro W600 runs 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The M500M also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, capping bandwidth at 14.40 GB/s. That is a 4.4x gap in memory bandwidth, and it shows up in any bandwidth-sensitive workload. Clock behavior differs too: the M500M has explicit base and boost clocks of 1029 MHz and 1124 MHz, while the FirePro W600 has no base or boost clock recorded in the database, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The M500M memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Compute resources are closer than the bandwidth gap would suggest. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The M500M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro has double the texture units and double the ROPs, but the M500M's higher clocks partially compensate. Pixel rate for the FirePro is 12.00 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s for the M500M; texture rate is 24.00 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is nearly identical: 768.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro versus 863.2 GFLOPS for the M500M, with the NVIDIA card slightly ahead despite fewer shading units, thanks to its boost clock.

Physical and interface differences matter for deployment. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot card, 168 mm long, 111 mm high, 20 mm wide, with six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. Its TDP is 75 W with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The M500M is an MXM module, portable-device dependent, with no recorded dimensions and no standard display outputs. Its TDP is just 30 W, also with no power connectors. The FirePro also supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170; the M500M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223, and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M scores 5986. The FirePro wins by 4%, a narrow margin that reflects the FP32 parity between the two: 768.0 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS actually favors the M500M, but the FirePro's 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 14.40 GB/s likely explains why the AMD card still comes out ahead in this particular workload.

The nearest-rival data puts these scores in context. The FirePro W600's 6223 OpenCL score sits between the AMD Radeon HD 6950 at 6210 (0.2% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, both at 6270 (0.7% ahead). It also trails the NVIDIA Quadro K620 at 6282 by 0.9%. This clustering suggests the FirePro is firmly in a mid-range compute tier, not far from much newer cards in raw OpenCL throughput. The M500M's 5986 OpenCL score is 1.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537, 1.5% behind the AMD Radeon HD 8790M at 5691, 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508, and 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501. Its average score of 5604, pulled down by the Vulkan result, places it in a lower overall tier than the FirePro.

The Vulkan result for the M500M is 5222, which is the only data point for that API in this comparison. Without a FirePro Vulkan score, the database cannot say which card is faster in Vulkan, only that the M500M has a recorded result and the FirePro does not.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5986 for the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, a 4% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro M500M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the database records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5222 for the M500M. The AMD FirePro W600 has no recorded Vulkan benchmark result.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The FirePro W600 has 64.00 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The M500M has 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The FirePro W600 has a TDP of 75 W, while the M500M has a TDP of 30 W. The FirePro suggests a 250 W power supply; the M500M has no suggested PSU in the database.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, while the M500M has 384. Despite this, the M500M has higher FP32 compute at 863.2 GFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro.

Q: What are the physical form factors?

A: The FirePro W600 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The M500M is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent outputs and no recorded dimensions.

The Verdict

The data points to different buyers for each card. The AMD FirePro W600 is the stronger compute card in the only shared benchmark, with a 4% OpenCL lead and a higher average benchmark score (6223 versus 5604). It also has vastly superior memory bandwidth at 64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, double the TMUs and ROPs, and a higher pixel rate (12.00 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s). Its 36th percentile ranking versus the M500M's 32nd percentile reinforces that it sits higher in the overall GPU distribution. The FirePro is also a self-contained PCIe card with six display outputs, making it suitable for a desktop workstation with multi-display needs.

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M, however, has the only Vulkan result in the database (5222), making it the sole choice for Vulkan-based workloads in this pairing. It also draws 30 W versus 75 W, a significant power advantage, and it has slightly higher FP32 compute (863.2 GFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS), which may matter in compute tasks that are not memory-bound. Its MXM form factor targets portable or modular systems where a full-height PCIe card will not fit.

The FirePro wins on memory bandwidth, texture rate, pixel rate, and OpenCL. The M500M wins on power efficiency, Vulkan support, and raw FP32 peak. Choose the FirePro W600 for OpenCL compute or multi-display desktop work; choose the M500M for low-power mobile or modular deployments with Vulkan requirements.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD FirePro W600 | NVIDIA Quadro M500M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |

| Chip | Cape Verde | GM108S |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 384 |

| TMUs | 32 | 16 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.00 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.00 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 768.0 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | Not recorded |

| Height | 111 mm (4.4 inches) | Not recorded |

| Width | 20 mm (0.8 inches) | Not recorded |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2012-06-12 | 2016-04-26 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | Quadro Pascal-M |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not recorded |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 6223 | 5986 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | Not recorded | 5222 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 6223 | 5604 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 36 | 32 |