AMD Radeon R6 M255DX vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M and AMD Radeon R6 M255DX are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, yet they represent sharply different design philosophies. The Quadro M500M, built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, is a discrete MXM module aimed at professional workloads, while the Radeon R6 M255DX is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) from AMD’s GCN 1.0 era, designed for hybrid system configurations. The recorded data shows the Quadro M500M holds a clear performance edge in the one benchmark where both were tested, but the R6 M255DX still has its own place in the mobile landscape. This analysis breaks down where each chip wins, what separates them architecturally, and how they compare head-to-head using only the database’s measurements.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M500M wins the only direct benchmark comparison available: Geekbench Vulkan. It scores 5222 compared to the R6 M255DX’s 4867, a 7.3% advantage. This makes the Quadro the stronger choice for any workload that leverages the Vulkan API, including modern game engines and compute tasks that use cross-platform graphics interfaces. The Quadro’s overall average benchmark score of 5604, drawn from both its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5986 and Vulkan score of 5222, places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. That percentile is modest, but it indicates the card performs consistently across different API types, with OpenCL being its stronger suite.

The Radeon R6 M255DX, by contrast, has only a single recorded benchmark: Geekbench Vulkan at 4867. Its average score is identical to that single result, and it sits in the 28th percentile of all GPUs. The data does not include any OpenCL result for the R6 M255DX, so its compute performance outside of Vulkan remains unmeasured. In the context of its nearest rivals, the R6 M255DX is effectively a mid-pack performer: it lands within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (which scores 4901) and within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844). That clustering means the R6 M255DX is neither a standout nor a laggard among its peers, but rather a typical integrated solution.

In practical terms, the Quadro M500M wins for users who need a discrete GPU with dedicated memory and a wider benchmark footprint. The R6 M255DX wins only in the sense of being an integrated option that consumes no extra power connectors and requires no MXM slot, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where space and thermal budgets are tight. The database shows no benchmark where the R6 M255DX outperforms the Quadro, so its advantage is purely architectural and system-level, not performance-based.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge fundamentally in their construction. The Quadro M500M uses the GM108S chip, built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The chip is a discrete part, packaged as an MXM Module with a 64-bit memory bus, 2 GB of DDR3 memory, and a bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s. Its clock speeds are a base of 1029 MHz and a boost of 1124 MHz, with memory running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The Quadro has 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). Its pixel rate is 8.992 GPixel/s, texture rate is 17.98 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is 863.2 GFLOPS. The power draw is rated at 30 W, and it uses no external power connectors. The bus interface is MXM-A (3.0), and display outputs are portable-device dependent.

The Radeon R6 M255DX uses the Jet chip, based on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, with a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. This is a smaller, less complex chip than the Quadro’s. Critically, the R6 M255DX is an IGP, meaning it has no dedicated memory. Its memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as “System Shared” or “System Dependent,” relying on the host system’s RAM. Its base clock is 780 MHz with a boost of 855 MHz. The R6 M255DX has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Its pixel rate is 6.840 GPixel/s, texture rate is 17.10 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is 547.2 GFLOPS. The TDP is not listed, and the slot width is simply “IGP,” with no power connectors required. The bus interface is IGP, and display outputs are similarly portable-device dependent.

Several key differences emerge. The Quadro has more shading units (384 vs. 320), a higher boost clock (1124 MHz vs. 855 MHz), and significantly higher FP32 throughput (863.2 vs. 547.2 GFLOPS). The R6 M255DX has more TMUs (20 vs. 16), but its lower clock speeds limit its texture rate to nearly the same figure as the Quadro (17.10 vs. 17.98 GTexel/s). The Quadro’s dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory provides predictable bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s, whereas the R6 M255DX’s shared memory bandwidth is entirely dependent on the host system. In terms of API support, the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the R6 M255DX supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, which is an older Vulkan version. The Quadro also has a newer release date, coming out in 2016, while the R6 M255DX launched in 2014.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the database is Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro M500M scores 5222, while the Radeon R6 M255DX scores 4867. The Quadro wins by 7.3%. This is a meaningful margin, roughly equivalent to the gap between the R6 M255DX and its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, which scores 4893. In relative terms, the Quadro’s Vulkan lead is larger than the R6 M255DX’s margin over the GeForce 940MX (which trails by 0.5%). The Quadro’s Vulkan score also exceeds its own nearest rivals: it is 1.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537 average), 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508), and 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501). However, the AMD Radeon HD 8790M edges it out by 1.5% with an average score of 5691.

For the R6 M255DX, its Vulkan score places it in a tight cluster. It is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (4855), 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844), and 0.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901). The R6 M255DX also trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 by 0.5% (4893). This clustering suggests that, in Vulkan, the R6 M255DX performs at a level comparable to mid-range discrete GPUs from several generations earlier, but it cannot match the Quadro M500M’s output.

The database records 1 win for the Quadro and 0 for the R6 M255DX in head-to-head tests. No other shared benchmarks exist, so the Vulkan result is the sole quantitative comparison. The Quadro’s OpenCL score of 5986, while not directly compared to the R6 M255DX (which has no OpenCL result), further underscores its broader capability across different compute APIs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M has an average benchmark score of 5604, based on two tests (Geekbench OpenCL at 5986 and Geekbench Vulkan at 5222). The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX has an average score of 4867, based solely on its Geekbench Vulkan result.

Q: How much faster is the Quadro M500M in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The Quadro M500M scores 5222 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the Radeon R6 M255DX scores 4867. The Quadro is 7.3% faster in this test.

Q: Does the Radeon R6 M255DX have dedicated memory?

A: No. The R6 M255DX uses system shared memory. Its memory size, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all listed as “System Shared” or “System Dependent.” The Quadro M500M, in contrast, has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the transistor counts of these two chips?

A: The Quadro M500M’s GM108S chip contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The Radeon R6 M255DX’s Jet chip contains 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The Quadro M500M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon R6 M255DX supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How does the Radeon R6 M255DX compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The R6 M255DX is within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (which scores 4901), within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844), and 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (4855). It also trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 by 0.5% (4893).

The Verdict

Based strictly on the database measurements, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M is the superior performer. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench Vulkan test, by 7.3%. Its average benchmark score of 5604 is 15.1% higher than the R6 M255DX’s 4867, and its OpenCL result of 5986 shows strength in compute workloads that the R6 M255DX cannot match, as no OpenCL score exists for the AMD part. The Quadro also offers dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory, a higher transistor count (1,020 million vs. 690 million), and a higher FP32 throughput (863.2 GFLOPS vs. 547.2 GFLOPS). Its 32nd percentile ranking among all GPUs, compared to the R6 M255DX’s 28th percentile, confirms its broader capability.

The Radeon R6 M255DX is not without merit, but its advantages are system-level rather than performance-based. As an IGP, it requires no MXM slot, no power connectors, and no dedicated memory, making it a low-footprint option for compact laptops. Its Vulkan score is respectable, clustering within 0.7% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, though that rival’s score is itself modest. For users who need a discrete GPU with professional Quadro branding, the M500M is the clear choice. For users who need an integrated solution that sips no extra power and occupies no expansion slot, the R6 M255DX remains a viable, if slower, alternative. The data does not support choosing the R6 M255DX for raw performance, but it does support choosing it for integration simplicity.