AMD Radeon R7 M260X vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly along compute API lines, with the NVIDIA Quadro M500M taking both recorded victories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M500M scores 5986 against the Radeon R7 M260X's 5690, a 5.2% advantage. The larger gap appears in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro M500M reaches 5222 while the Radeon R7 M260X stops at 4631, a 12.8% lead. These results indicate the NVIDIA part holds a consistent edge across both general-purpose compute and graphics API workloads, though the margin nearly doubles when moving from OpenCL to Vulkan.

The Radeon R7 M260X does not win either recorded test, but its OpenCL result of 5690 places it within striking distance of the Quadro's 5986. The Vulkan score of 4631, however, reveals a more pronounced weakness in that API. For users prioritizing OpenCL workloads, the difference between the two is modest; for Vulkan-based applications, the NVIDIA part is substantially stronger. The database also shows the Quadro M500M sits at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon R7 M260X sits at the 30th, confirming the NVIDIA part's slight overall ranking advantage despite both being entry-level mobile solutions.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families and manufacturing strategies, though both use a 28 nm TSMC process. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip. Transistor counts differ modestly: the NVIDIA die packs 1,020 million transistors, the AMD die has 950 million. Both share the same die area of 77 mm², which yields a slightly higher transistor density for NVIDIA at 13.2M per mm² versus AMD's 12.3M per mm².

Shading unit counts match at 384 for both, but the rest of the pipeline diverges. The Quadro M500M includes 16 texture mapping units and 8 raster output units, while the Radeon R7 M260X has 24 texture mapping units and the same 8 raster output units. Clock speeds favor NVIDIA decisively: the Quadro runs at a 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, whereas the Radeon operates at only 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost. Memory configurations also contrast sharply. The Quadro uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, over four times the NVIDIA figure.

API support shows differences as well. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro's DirectX version is 12 (11_0) while the Radeon's is 12 (11_1). Vulkan support also differs: the Quadro lists Vulkan 1.4, the Radeon lists Vulkan 1.2.170. The bus interface separates them further, with the Quadro using MXM-A (3.0) and the Radeon using PCIe 3.0 x8. Power consumption is recorded only for the NVIDIA part at 30 W; the AMD part has no TDP listed in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the Quadro M500M scoring 5986 against the Radeon R7 M260X's 5690. The 5.2% delta is modest, and the result aligns with the Quadro's higher clock speeds and lower memory bandwidth. The Radeon's GDDR5 at 64.00 GB/s should theoretically help memory-bound OpenCL tasks, yet the NVIDIA part still wins, suggesting that the Quadro's 1124 MHz boost clock and Maxwell efficiency compensate for its narrow 64-bit memory bus.

Geekbench Vulkan presents a clearer separation. The Quadro M500M scores 5222, the Radeon R7 M260X scores 4631, a 12.8% delta that nearly doubles the OpenCL gap. This result likely reflects the Quadro's newer Vulkan 1.4 support versus the Radeon's Vulkan 1.2.170, though the database does not isolate API version effects from raw hardware performance. The Radeon's lower pixel rate of 5.720 GPixel/s versus the Quadro's 8.992 GPixel/s and its lower texture rate of 17.16 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s both point to the same conclusion: the NVIDIA part has higher peak throughput in most fixed-function units.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this pattern. The Quadro M500M averages 5604 across its recorded tests, while the Radeon R7 M260X averages 5161. The Quadro's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 (1.2% behind), the AMD Radeon HD 8790M at 5691 (1.5% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508 (1.7% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (1.9% behind). The Radeon's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M at 5154 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5211 (1% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5236 (1.4% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R7 240 at 5063 (1.9% behind). These rival clusters show both GPUs occupy the same performance tier, but the Quadro sits slightly higher within it.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M averages 5604 across its recorded tests, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260X averages 5161, a difference of 443 points in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro M500M scores 5222 against the Radeon R7 M260X's 4631, giving NVIDIA a 12.8% lead.

Q: Does the Radeon R7 M260X have any memory bandwidth advantage?

A: Yes. The Radeon uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s, while the Quadro uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The Quadro M500M runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, while the Radeon R7 M260X runs at 620 MHz base and 715 MHz boost.

Q: How do their texture unit counts compare?

A: The Radeon R7 M260X has 24 texture mapping units, while the Quadro M500M has 16, giving AMD a 50% higher TMU count.

Q: What are the DirectX version differences?

A: The Quadro M500M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the Radeon R7 M260X supports DirectX 12 (11_1), a minor feature-level difference.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA Quadro M500M as the stronger GPU in both recorded benchmarks. Its 5.2% OpenCL lead and 12.8% Vulkan lead, combined with a higher average score of 5604 versus 5161, make it the default choice for users who need compute performance in mobile workstations. The Quadro's higher clocks (1029 MHz base, 1124 MHz boost versus 620 MHz and 715 MHz) and higher pixel rate (8.992 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s) support its benchmark wins, even though the Radeon counters with four times the memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s) and more texture units (24 versus 16).

Users who prioritize memory bandwidth or texture throughput might prefer the Radeon R7 M260X on paper, but the benchmark results do not reflect such an advantage in real recorded tests. The Radeon's OpenCL score of 5690 is respectable and close to the Quadro's 5986, so for OpenCL-only workloads the gap is narrow. However, the Vulkan result of 4631 against 5222 shows a clear weakness that would matter in modern graphics APIs.

The Quadro M500M also carries professional branding from NVIDIA, which may indicate driver validation for workstation applications, though the database does not include specific professional workload tests. The Radeon R7 M260X, with its 1024 MB memory and GCN 1.0 architecture, appears more dated despite its higher bandwidth. For general purpose use, the Quadro M500M wins on measured performance. For users who specifically need GDDR5 bandwidth or texture unit count, the Radeon offers those specifications, but the recorded data does not translate them into benchmark victories.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro M500M | AMD Radeon R7 M260X |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GM108S | Opal |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) | Gem System (R7 M200) |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 950 million |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1029 MHz | 620 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | 715 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

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

| Texture Mapping Units | 16 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.992 GPixel/s | 5.720 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.98 GTexel/s | 17.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 863.2 GFLOPS | 549.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2016-04-26 | 2015-12-05 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler-M | Solar System |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal-M | Polaris Mobile |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 5986 | 5690 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 5222 | 4631 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5604 | 5161 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 32 | 30 |

The specification table highlights where each GPU aims its strengths. NVIDIA concentrates on clock speed and compute throughput, while AMD invests in memory bandwidth and texture units. The measured benchmarks favor NVIDIA's approach, with the Quadro M500M winning both recorded tests and holding a higher percentile ranking at 32 versus 30.