AMD Radeon R7 M265 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the database benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 5986 versus 4929 for the AMD Radeon R7 M265, a delta of 21.4%.

Q: How do these two GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro M500M sits at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5604. It is 1.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro M4000, 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130, and 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, while trailing the AMD Radeon HD 8790M by 1.5%. The Radeon R7 M265 sits at the 29th percentile, with an average score of 4929; it is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (0% delta) and 0.5% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5130M.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of DDR3 memory, but the bus widths differ. The Quadro M500M uses a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon R7 M265 uses a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, exactly double.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The Quadro M500M runs at a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The Radeon R7 M265 runs at 725 MHz base and 825 MHz boost. The Quadro is substantially higher in both figures.

Q: What are the architectural generations of these chips?

A: The Quadro M500M is based on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, chip GM108S, from the Quadro Maxwell-M generation. The Radeon R7 M265 is based on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, chip Opal, from the Gem System generation.

Q: Which GPU has a higher theoretical compute throughput?

A: The Quadro M500M delivers 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Radeon R7 M265 delivers 633.6 GFLOPS. The Quadro is ahead by roughly 36% in this metric.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M uses the Maxwell architecture on a chip designated GM108S, built at TSMC's 28 nm process. The AMD Radeon R7 M265 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on the Opal chip, also built at TSMC's 28 nm process. Both share the same process node and foundry.

Transistor counts differ modestly. The Quadro packs 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm². The Radeon has 950 million transistors on the same 77 mm² die size, giving a density of 12.3 million per mm². The Quadro achieves a slightly higher packing density.

Both GPUs have 384 shading units and 8 ROPs. The key difference lies in texture units: the Quadro has 16 TMUs, while the Radeon has 24 TMUs. This gives the Radeon a higher texture rate of 19.80 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s for the Quadro, despite the Quadro's higher clocks.

Clock speeds diverge significantly. The Quadro runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, while the Radeon runs at 725 MHz base and 825 MHz boost. This clock advantage drives the Quadro's higher pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s for the Radeon.

Memory subsystems differ in bus width. The Quadro uses a 64-bit DDR3 interface with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the Radeon uses a 128-bit DDR3 interface with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon's wider bus compensates for its lower core clocks in memory-bound workloads.

API support shows differences in DirectX and Vulkan versions. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the Radeon supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the Radeon uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Release timing also differs. The Quadro M500M was released on 2016-04-26, while the Radeon R7 M265 was released on 2014-01-08. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is the Quadro Pascal-M; the Radeon's predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M scores 5986 against 4929 for the AMD Radeon R7 M265. The delta is 21.4% in favor of the Quadro. This is the only head-to-head benchmark available, and the Quadro wins it outright.

Context from the nearest rivals clarifies the magnitude. The Quadro's 5986 OpenCL score sits above its own average of 5604, which includes both OpenCL and Vulkan results. The Radeon's 4929 OpenCL score matches its average exactly, as that is its only recorded benchmark.

The Quadro's win is consistent with its higher FP32 throughput. The Quadro delivers 863.2 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS for the Radeon, a 36% advantage in raw compute. The OpenCL workload appears to favor that compute strength.

However, the Radeon has structural advantages that the OpenCL test may not fully capture. Its 128-bit memory bus provides 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, exactly double the Quadro's 14.40 GB/s. Its 24 TMUs give it a texture rate of 19.80 GTexel/s, 10% higher than the Quadro's 17.98 GTexel/s. These features could benefit memory-heavy or texture-heavy workloads, though no such benchmarks are recorded in the database.

The percentile rankings reinforce the gap. The Quadro sits at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs, while the Radeon sits at the 29th percentile. This three-point spread is modest, but the direct benchmark delta of 21.4% shows the Quadro is clearly faster in the tested workload.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner in the recorded benchmarks. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M outperforms the AMD Radeon R7 M265 by 21.4% in Geekbench OpenCL, the only head-to-head test available. Its average benchmark score of 5604 versus 4929 confirms the gap. The Quadro also holds a higher percentile ranking at 32 versus 29.

The Quadro's advantages stem from higher clocks and compute throughput. Its base clock of 1029 MHz and boost of 1124 MHz far exceed the Radeon's 725 MHz and 825 MHz. Its FP32 output of 863.2 GFLOPS is 36% higher than the Radeon's 633.6 GFLOPS. These factors dominate the OpenCL result.

The Radeon R7 M265 is not without strengths. Its 128-bit memory bus delivers 28.80 GB/s, double the Quadro's bandwidth. Its 24 TMUs provide a higher texture rate. But the database shows no benchmark where these advantages translate into a win.

Who should choose which? The Quadro M500M is the choice for compute-oriented tasks that resemble the OpenCL workload. Its higher FP32 and pixel rates make it stronger for general GPU compute as measured here. The Radeon R7 M265 could be considered for tasks that heavily favor memory bandwidth or texture throughput, but the recorded data does not demonstrate a win for it in any tested scenario.

The Quadro also offers more modern software support with Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170, and a later release date of 2016 versus 2014. Both are end-of-life products, so longevity is not a differentiator.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the NVIDIA Quadro M500M and the AMD Radeon R7 M265:

• Chip: GM108S (NVIDIA) versus Opal (AMD)
• Architecture: Maxwell versus GCN 1.0
• Generation: Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) versus Gem System (R7 M200)
• Transistors: 1,020 million versus 950 million
• Transistor density: 13.2M / mm² versus 12.3M / mm²
• Base clock: 1029 MHz versus 725 MHz
• Boost clock: 1124 MHz versus 825 MHz
• Memory bus width: 64 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 14.40 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s
• TMUs: 16 versus 24
• Pixel rate: 8.992 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 17.98 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s
• FP32: 863.2 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS
• TDP: 30 W (Quadro) versus not specified (Radeon)
• Slot width: MXM Module (Quadro) versus not specified (Radeon)
• Power connectors: None (Quadro) versus not specified (Radeon)
• Bus interface: MXM-A (3.0) versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent (Quadro) versus not specified (Radeon)
• DirectX support: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.2.170
• Release date: 2016-04-26 versus 2014-01-08
• Predecessor: Quadro Kepler-M versus Solar System
• Successor: Quadro Pascal-M versus Polaris Mobile
• Geekbench OpenCL score: 5986 versus 4929
• Geekbench Vulkan score: 5222 (Quadro only, no Radeon equivalent)
• Average benchmark score: 5604 versus 4929
• Percentile: 32 versus 29

Fields that are identical: process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), die size (77 mm²), memory size (2 GB), memory type (DDR3), memory clock (900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective), shading units (384), ROPs (8), OpenGL version (4.6), production status (end-of-life), and launch MSRP (not specified for either).

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro M500M wins in: the only recorded benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by 21.4%. It also wins on raw compute metrics: FP32 throughput at 863.2 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS, pixel rate at 8.992 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s, and both base and boost clocks. Its higher transistor count of 1,020 million and density of 13.2M / mm² indicate a more densely packed design. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is newer than the Radeon's 1.2.170. Its 30 W TDP is specified, whereas the Radeon's is not recorded. It has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score of 5222, which the Radeon lacks entirely.

AMD Radeon R7 M265 wins in: memory bandwidth, delivering 28.80 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, thanks to its 128-bit bus. It also wins on texture rate at 19.80 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s, driven by its 24 TMUs versus 16. It supports a slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0). Its transistor count of 950 million is lower, but so is its density at 12.3M / mm². It uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, which differs from the Quadro's MXM-A (3.0) form factor.

The use-case split follows these strengths. For compute-heavy tasks resembling the OpenCL workload, the Quadro M500M is the stronger choice. For tasks that depend heavily on memory bandwidth or texture throughput, the Radeon R7 M265 has theoretical advantages, though no recorded benchmark confirms a win. The database records one victory for the Quadro and none for the Radeon.