AMD Radeon R7 M370 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data leaves little ambiguity in direct comparisons. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD Radeon R7 M370 scores 7063 against the NVIDIA Quadro M500M's 5986, a decisive 18% advantage. The Vulkan result is even more lopsided: the R7 M370 posts 6465 while the Quadro M500M trails at 5222, a 23.8% gap. Both head-to-head benchmarks, the only two recorded, go to the AMD part.

These deltas are not marginal. An 18% lead in OpenCL places the R7 M370 in a different performance tier, and the 23.8% margin in Vulkan suggests the advantage grows under that API. The Quadro M500M's own average benchmark score, 5604, sits well below the R7 M370's 7063 average. That 1459-point difference in overall averages reinforces the pattern established in the individual tests.

Context from the nearest rivals sharpens the picture. The R7 M370's average score of 6764 places it slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6698, a 1% delta) and notably ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6612, a 2.3% delta). It also edges out the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830, a -1% delta) by a hair, though it trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946, a -2.6% delta). The Quadro M500M, meanwhile, sits among lower-scoring company: its 5604 average beats the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537, a 1.2% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, a 1.7% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, a 1.9% delta), but falls behind the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691, a -1.5% delta). The percentile data confirms the hierarchy: the R7 M370 lands at the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M500M sits at the 32nd.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M370 wins every recorded benchmark category. In OpenCL workloads, which often reflect general compute and data-parallel tasks, the 18% lead indicates a substantial advantage. Vulkan, a lower-level graphics and compute API, shows an even wider 23.8% gap, suggesting the R7 M370's architecture handles modern API overhead more efficiently.

The Quadro M500M's case rests on attributes outside raw performance scores. Its 30 W TDP is officially recorded, while the R7 M370 has no TDP figure in the database. The Quadro also comes as an MXM module with a bus interface of MXM-A (3.0), a standardized form factor for mobile workstations, whereas the R7 M370 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. For systems requiring a specific MXM footprint, the Quadro is the only one of the two that fits that slot type.

In compute throughput, the numbers favor AMD. The R7 M370 delivers 737.3 GFLOPS of FP32 performance against the Quadro's 863.2 GFLOPS, a reversal of the benchmark trend. However, the R7 M370 counters with a texture rate of 23.04 GTexel/s versus the Quadro's 17.98 GTexel/s, and a memory bandwidth of 57.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. The R7 M370 also has 24 texture mapping units to the Quadro's 16, though both have 384 shading units and 8 ROPs.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages. The AMD Radeon R7 M370 uses GCN 1.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Litho, part of the Gem System generation (R7 M300 series). The NVIDIA Quadro M500M uses Maxwell architecture on the GM108S chip, part of the Quadro Maxwell-M generation (Mx000M). Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and both have a 77 mm² die size. Transistor counts are close: AMD packs 950 million transistors for a density of 12.3M per mm², while NVIDIA fits 1,020 million for 13.2M per mm².

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The R7 M370 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 57.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M500M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s. That quadruple bandwidth difference is the single largest architectural gap between them. The R7 M370's memory clock is listed at 900 MHz with 3.6 Gbps effective, while the Quadro's memory clock is 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, reflecting the different memory types.

Clock speeds tell another story. The Quadro runs a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost of 1124 MHz, both higher than the R7 M370's 875 MHz base and 960 MHz boost. Yet the AMD part still wins the recorded benchmarks, which points to the bandwidth and texture throughput advantages outweighing raw clock speed. The R7 M370's pixel rate is 7.680 GPixel/s, lower than the Quadro's 8.992 GPixel/s, but its texture rate of 23.04 GTexel/s exceeds the Quadro's 17.98 GTexel/s.

API support differs in notable ways. The R7 M370 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro M500M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. The R7 M370's predecessor is listed as Solar System and its successor as Polaris Mobile; the Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is Quadro Pascal-M. Release dates also differ: the R7 M370 came out in May 2015, the Quadro M500M in April 2016.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head benchmark tests?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M370 wins both recorded tests. It scores 7063 in Geekbench OpenCL against the Quadro M500M's 5986, an 18% lead, and 6465 in Geekbench Vulkan against 5222, a 23.8% lead.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The R7 M370 has an average benchmark score of 6764, placing it at the 38th percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro M500M averages 5604, at the 32nd percentile.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU?

A: The R7 M370's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M5100 (6830, -1%), NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6698, 1%), AMD Radeon R7 M460 (6612, 2.3%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946, -2.6%). The Quadro M500M's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537, 1.2%), AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691, -1.5%), NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, 1.7%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, 1.9%).

Q: How does memory bandwidth differ between the two?

A: The R7 M370 has 57.60 GB/s of bandwidth using 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The Quadro M500M has 14.40 GB/s using 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: The Quadro M500M is rated at 863.2 GFLOPS, exceeding the R7 M370's 737.3 GFLOPS. However, the R7 M370 has a higher texture rate at 23.04 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s.

Q: What power and form factor differences are recorded?

A: The Quadro M500M has a 30 W TDP, an MXM module form factor, MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, and no power connectors. The R7 M370 has no TDP, slot width, or power connector data recorded, and uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for raw performance. The AMD Radeon R7 M370 leads the Quadro M500M in both recorded benchmarks, in average score, and in percentile ranking. Its memory bandwidth advantage, 57.60 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, is the kind of gap that shows up in texture-heavy and compute-bound workloads. The 23.8% Vulkan lead suggests the R7 M370 is also the better choice for modern API applications.

The Quadro M500M has its own rationale. Its 30 W TDP is recorded, making it a lower-power option, and its MXM-A (3.0) form factor suits systems designed around that standard. Its higher clock speeds, 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, and higher FP32 rating of 863.2 GFLOPS, indicate it is not without computational merit. Buyers constrained by MXM slots or power budgets would find it the only viable option from this pair.

For users choosing between these two purely on benchmark results, the R7 M370 is the stronger pick. It wins every measured test and does so by a margin that grows under Vulkan. The Quadro's case is contextual, not performance-based. The recorded data cannot justify selecting the Quadro for speed alone, but its form factor and power profile could justify selection for specific mobile workstation chassis.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M370 | NVIDIA Quadro M500M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |

| Chip | Litho | GM108S |

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

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,020 million |

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

| Base Clock | 875 MHz | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 960 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz, 3.6 Gbps effective | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 57.60 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| TMUs | 24 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.680 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 23.04 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 737.3 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

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

| Predecessor | Solar System | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Quadro Pascal-M |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 7063 | 5986 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 6465 | 5222 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 6764 | 5604 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 38 | 32 |