AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M represent two very different approaches to professional mobile graphics. The WX 4100 is a discrete, full-height add-in card aimed at workstation towers, while the M500M is a low-power MXM module designed for laptops. The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the underlying specification and architecture differences explain why each product exists. This analysis examines the benchmark results, design philosophies, and use cases derived strictly from the database.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the head-to-head benchmark data, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins decisively in every recorded test. The database lists exactly two comparative benchmarks: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the AMD card is the outright winner, with the NVIDIA card failing to secure a single victory. The wins tally is 2 for AMD and 0 for NVIDIA.

The AMD card's dominance is not marginal. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 17642 against the M500M's 5986, a delta of 194.7%. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin grows even larger: 18703 versus 5222, a delta of 258.2%. This suggests that for any compute-heavy or API-modern workload, the WX 4100 is the only viable option between the two.

The Quadro M500M does not win any benchmark, but its lower power envelope and compact MXM form factor imply a different kind of victory: efficiency in constrained environments. The data shows a 30 W TDP for the M500M versus 50 W for the WX 4100, and the M500M requires no additional power connectors, just like the AMD card. However, the M500M's portable-device-dependent display outputs and lack of a launch MSRP indicate it is an OEM component, not a retail product.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has an average benchmark score of 6330, placing it in the 37th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M has an average score of 5604, sitting in the 32nd percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the shared benchmarks?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD card leads by 194.7% (17642 vs 5986). In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD card leads by 258.2% (18703 vs 5222).

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

A: The WX 4100's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (0.1% faster), the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (0.8% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE and GTX 580M (both 0.9% slower). The M500M's nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro M4000 (1.2% faster), the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (1.5% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (1.7% slower), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (1.9% slower).

Q: Which card supports more modern graphics APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. While the NVIDIA card has a higher Vulkan version, the AMD card supports a more complete DirectX 12 feature level.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD card has a memory bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s using a 128-bit bus and GDDR5 memory. The NVIDIA card has a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s using a 64-bit bus and DDR3 memory. This represents a 6.67x advantage for the AMD card.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life products. The AMD card was released on 2016-11-09, and the NVIDIA card was released earlier on 2016-04-26.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head tests reveal a stark performance disparity. The Geekbench Vulkan test shows the largest margin: the WX 4100 scores 18703, which is 258.2% higher than the M500M's 5222. This is a massive gap, indicating that the AMD card's architecture is far better suited to modern, low-level graphics APIs. The Vulkan score difference of 13481 points is more than double the M500M's entire score.

The Geekbench OpenCL test is similarly one-sided. The WX 4100 achieves 17642, while the M500M manages 5986. The delta percentage here is 194.7%. This test measures general-purpose compute performance, and the results align perfectly with the raw compute specifications. The AMD card delivers 2.460 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the NVIDIA card delivers 863.2 GFLOPS. The AMD card is roughly 2.85x faster in raw FP32 throughput, which is consistent with the observed benchmark deltas.

The absence of other shared benchmarks (such as Passmark tests) is notable. The M500M only has Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan scores recorded, while the WX 4100 has a full suite including Passmark DirectX 9/10/11/12, G2D, G3D, and compute tests. This missing data for the NVIDIA card prevents a complete comparison, but the available metrics point to a clear winner. The WX 4100's Passmark G3D score of 3699 and GPU compute score of 1475 further contextualize its capabilities, though no direct M500M comparison exists.

Specification Differences

The core specifications diverge sharply. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses a Baffin chip built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries, with 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M uses a GM108S chip on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The transistor density tells the story: AMD packs 24.4 million transistors per mm², while NVIDIA manages 13.2 million per mm².

Memory configurations are extremely different. The AMD card has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s. The clock speeds also differ. The AMD card runs at a base of 1125 MHz with a boost of 1201 MHz, while the NVIDIA card runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for NVIDIA.

Compute unit counts follow the same pattern. The AMD card has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA card has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This leads to pixel rates of 19.22 GPixel/s for AMD versus 8.992 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, and texture rates of 76.86 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput is 2.460 TFLOPS for AMD, while NVIDIA reaches 863.2 GFLOPS. The AMD card also supports FP16 at 2.460 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio, a feature the NVIDIA card does not list.

Physical and power characteristics differ as well. The AMD card is a single-slot, 168 mm long, 69 mm tall PCIe 3.0 x8 card with a 50 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The NVIDIA card is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, a 30 W TDP, and no suggested PSU listed. Display outputs are also distinct: the AMD card has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the NVIDIA card's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent."

Architecture Differences

The architectural philosophies are fundamentally different. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses GCN 4.0, part of the Radeon Pro Polaris generation. This architecture was designed for high-throughput compute and modern graphics features, with a focus on balancing pixel, texture, and compute workloads. The 14 nm process allows for a dense transistor layout, and the 1:1 FP16 support is a significant feature for compute tasks that can utilize half-precision.

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M uses Maxwell, from the Quadro Maxwell-M generation. Maxwell is an older architecture (28 nm) that prioritizes power efficiency over raw compute. The GM108S chip is a small, low-power design intended for mobile workstations where thermal and battery constraints are critical. The lack of FP16 support in the recorded data suggests this chip was not designed for modern AI or machine learning workloads.

The API support also reflects the architectural timelines. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_0), which is the full feature level for that API generation. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (11_0), a lower feature level that lacks some advanced features. Interestingly, the NVIDIA card lists Vulkan 1.4 support, which is higher than the AMD card's Vulkan 1.3, but the actual benchmark results in Vulkan show the AMD card is far faster despite the lower API version.

The bus interfaces highlight their intended ecosystems. The AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x8, which is a standard desktop workstation interface. The NVIDIA card uses MXM-A (3.0), a specialized mobile module standard. This alone dictates that the WX 4100 belongs in a tower or rack workstation, while the M500M is destined for a laptop chassis.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro M500M in every recorded benchmark. The Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results show deltas of 194.7% and 258.2% respectively, which aligns with the massive differences in memory bandwidth (96.00 vs 14.40 GB/s), shader count (1024 vs 384), and FP32 throughput (2.460 TFLOPS vs 863.2 GFLOPS). Anyone choosing between these two for raw performance should select the WX 4100 without hesitation.

However, the M500M is not without a purpose. Its 30 W TDP is 40% lower than the AMD card's 50 W, and its MXM-A form factor makes it compatible with thin-and-light mobile workstations. The AMD card's 168 mm length and 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs are impractical for a laptop. The M500M's lower average benchmark score (5604 vs 6330) and lower percentile (32nd vs 37th) reflect its reduced capabilities, but also its reduced power requirements.

The nearest rival data reinforces this split. The WX 4100 competes with the Radeon R7 M350 and GeForce GTX 580M, which are larger, more powerful mobile or older desktop parts. The M500M competes with the FirePro M4000 and GeForce MX130, which are lower-tier mobile chips. This confirms that the M500M is positioned several classes below the WX 4100 in the performance hierarchy.

For a workstation user requiring compute power, CAD performance, or multi-display output, the WX 4100 is the only logical choice. For a mobile workstation user prioritizing battery life and portability over performance, the M500M exists as a low-power option, but the benchmark data shows it delivers less than one-third the OpenCL performance and less than one-quarter the Vulkan performance of the AMD card. The verdict from the database: the WX 4100 wins on every measurable metric, while the M500M wins only on power efficiency and form factor suitability.