AMD Radeon R7 M350 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile GPUs. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 wins both recorded head-to-head tests, taking the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan workloads. In the OpenCL test, the AMD part scores 6991 against the NVIDIA Quadro M500M's 5986, a 16.8% advantage. In the Vulkan test, the AMD card scores 5662 versus 5222 for the NVIDIA, an 8.4% edge.

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M does not win either of the two head-to-head benchmarks. Its only comparative strengths appear in the aggregate statistics: the AMD part holds an average benchmark score of 6327, while the NVIDIA card sits at 5604. The AMD GPU also ranks higher in the overall percentile distribution, landing at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M500M sits at the 32nd percentile.

Looking at the nearest rival groups, the AMD part's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 with an average score of 6330, a 0% delta. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M's nearest rival is the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537, a 1.2% delta in favor of the Quadro. The data suggests the AMD Radeon R7 M350 competes in a slightly higher performance tier, while the Quadro M500M anchors closer to older mobile workstation parts like the Radeon HD 8790M, which scores 5691 and actually beats the Quadro by 1.5%.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 uses the Meso chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.4 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M uses the GM108S chip on the Maxwell architecture, also from TSMC on 28 nm, but with 1,020 million transistors on a smaller 77 mm² die, yielding a higher density of 13.2 million per square millimeter.

Both GPUs feature 384 shading units and 8 ROPs, but their texture units differ. The AMD part carries 24 TMUs, while the NVIDIA chip has 16. This impacts texture throughput: the AMD Radeon R7 M350 reaches 24.36 GTexel/s, while the Quadro M500M manages 17.98 GTexel/s. Pixel rates are closer, at 8.120 GPixel/s for AMD versus 8.992 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, a result of the Quadro's higher clock speeds.

The clock behavior also diverges. The AMD GPU runs at a 1000 MHz base and 1015 MHz boost. The NVIDIA part starts at 1029 MHz base and boosts to 1124 MHz. Despite the lower clocks, the AMD chip achieves a higher texture rate thanks to its extra TMUs. Raw FP32 compute favors NVIDIA: 863.2 GFLOPS versus 779.5 GFLOPS for AMD. The AMD part also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, 779.5 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA chip has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory configurations differ significantly. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, running at 1000 MHz with 2 Gbps effective, delivering 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M500M has 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 64-bit bus, but at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, producing 14.40 GB/s. The AMD card's larger frame buffer and higher bandwidth give it an edge in memory-heavy workloads.

The bus interfaces also differ. The AMD part uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA card uses MXM-A (3.0), a module form factor. The Quadro M500M lists a 30 W TDP and has no power connectors, while the AMD GPU has no recorded TDP or power connector data. Display outputs for the NVIDIA card are listed as portable device dependent, and no display output data exists for the AMD part.

In API support, both cards list DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD card specifies DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA card lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. The higher Vulkan version on the NVIDIA part suggests newer driver-level API support, but the recorded Vulkan benchmark still favors AMD.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The OpenCL test delivers the largest margin. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 scores 6991, while the Quadro M500M scores 5986. That is a 16.8% lead for the AMD part. In practical terms, this means the AMD GPU completes OpenCL compute workloads noticeably faster, likely reflecting its higher texture rate and memory bandwidth.

The Vulkan test narrows the gap. AMD scores 5662, NVIDIA scores 5222, a difference of 8.4%. The smaller margin in Vulkan suggests the NVIDIA architecture handles the API relatively better, but it still loses. The AMD card's lead in both tests aligns with its higher average benchmark score of 6327 versus 5604.

The closest rival comparison for the AMD part shows a 0% delta against the Radeon Pro WX 4100, meaning the R7 M350 performs essentially at parity with that workstation card. For the Quadro M500M, the 1.2% delta against the AMD FirePro M4000 indicates a near-tie, and the negative 1.5% delta against the Radeon HD 8790M shows that the Quadro actually loses to that older part.

The average benchmark score difference between the two GPUs is 723 points, or about 12.9% in favor of AMD. This aligns with the per-test deltas, confirming that the AMD Radeon R7 M350 holds a consistent, if moderate, performance advantage across the recorded workloads.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD Radeon R7 M350 is the faster GPU. It wins both head-to-head tests, holds the higher average benchmark score, and ranks in a higher overall percentile. Users running OpenCL compute tasks should see a 16.8% improvement over the Quadro M500M, while Vulkan workloads show an 8.4% gain. The AMD card also offers double the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB, along with higher bandwidth.

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M is not without merit. Its higher boost clock of 1124 MHz and superior FP32 compute of 863.2 GFLOPS give it a theoretical edge in raw floating-point throughput. Its lower 30 W TDP and MXM module form factor make it a more power-conscious choice for thin mobile workstations. The Vulkan 1.4 API support is newer than the AMD card's Vulkan 1.2.170.

However, benchmark results do not favor the NVIDIA part in any recorded test. The Quadro M500M sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD card sits at the 36th. The nearest rival data further underscores this: the Quadro's closest competitor, the AMD FirePro M4000, nearly matches it, and the older Radeon HD 8790M beats it.

For compute-heavy mobile workloads, the AMD Radeon R7 M350 is the clear pick. For users constrained by power draw or requiring a standardized MXM module, the Quadro M500M remains a viable option, but the performance data shows a consistent AMD advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 has an average benchmark score of 6327, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M averages 5604.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R7 M350 leads by 16.8%, scoring 6991 versus 5986 for the Quadro M500M.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro M500M win any recorded benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the AMD card winning both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests, with 2 wins for AMD and 0 for NVIDIA.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M350 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M500M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher raw FP32 compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M reaches 863.2 GFLOPS, while the AMD Radeon R7 M350 delivers 779.5 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each GPU?

A: For the AMD Radeon R7 M350, the closest rival is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 with a 0% delta. For the Quadro M500M, the closest rival is the AMD FirePro M4000 with a 1.2% delta.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M350 | NVIDIA Quadro M500M |

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

| Chip | Meso | GM108S |

| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Maxwell |

| Generation | Gem System (R7 M300) | Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) |

| Transistors | 1,550 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 125 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.4M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1000 MHz | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1015 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Texture Mapping Units | 24 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.120 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.36 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 779.5 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 779.5 GFLOPS (1:1) | Not recorded |

| TDP | Not recorded | 30 W |

| Slot Width | Not recorded | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not recorded | None |

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

| Display Outputs | Not recorded | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

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

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

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Pascal-M |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 36 | 32 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 6327 | 5604 |