AMD Radeon RX 6400 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 and NVIDIA Quadro M500M occupy distinctly different corners of the GPU landscape, separated by six years of architectural progress and a fundamental divide in their intended workloads. The data shows a decisive performance gap, with the RX 6400 delivering benchmark scores that are multiples of the Quadro's output, yet the M500M retains relevance in its specific niche of low-power mobile workstations. This analysis breaks down their respective strengths, the architectural chasm between them, and the raw performance numbers that define their standing.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is the clear victor in every measurable performance category, winning both head-to-head benchmarks outright. Its wins are not marginal but categorical, reflecting a generational leap in compute capability. The RX 6400’s strength lies in its raw throughput and modern feature set, making it suited for contemporary gaming and general-purpose compute tasks. Its 2:1 FP16 ratio and DirectX 12 Ultimate support position it for workloads that leverage these modern APIs, while its 3.565 TFLOPS FP32 performance provides a substantial foundation for shader-heavy applications.

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M, by contrast, wins in the domain of power efficiency and form factor, though this is not reflected in raw scores. With a 30 W TDP and an MXM Module slot width, it is built for ultra-portable, low-power mobile systems. Its architecture predates modern ray tracing and tensor core technologies, but its Maxwell generation still supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, making it a functional, if dated, option for legacy professional applications that do not demand high frame rates or compute throughput. The M500M’s only benchmark data points, 5986 in Geekbench OpenCL and 5222 in Geekbench Vulkan, place it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, slightly below the RX 6400’s 35th percentile, but its low-power design remains its primary selling point.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The RX 6400 is built on TSMC’s 6 nm process node, packing 5,400 million transistors into a 107 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 50.5 million per square millimeter, a figure that dwarfs the M500M’s 13.2 million per square millimeter. The RX 6400 uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture, part of the Navi II generation, while the M500M relies on the older Maxwell architecture from the Quadro Maxwell-M generation, built on a 28 nm process.

These process and architecture differences translate directly into hardware capabilities. The RX 6400 features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 raster operation units, alongside 12 dedicated ray tracing cores. The M500M, in contrast, has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with no ray tracing support whatsoever. The RX 6400’s memory subsystem uses 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, providing 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the M500M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 64-bit bus, yielding a mere 14.40 GB/s. This nine-fold difference in memory bandwidth alone explains much of the performance gap in memory-intensive tasks.

Clock speeds further compound the difference. The RX 6400 operates at a base clock of 1923 MHz with a boost of 2321 MHz, while the M500M is limited to a 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. The RX 6400’s pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s and texture rate of 111.4 GTexel/s are orders of magnitude higher than the M500M’s 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s, respectively. Even the bus interface differs fundamentally: the RX 6400 uses PCIe 4.0 x4, whereas the M500M relies on the MXM-A (3.0) form factor, reflecting its mobile-first design philosophy.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unequivocal. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RX 6400 scores 32,011, which is 434.8% higher than the M500M’s 5,986. This is not a slight edge but a five-fold increase in compute performance, aligning with the difference in FP32 throughput (3.565 TFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS). The RX 6400’s advantage is even more pronounced in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where it scores 16,372 against the M500M’s 5,222, a delta of 213.5%. While the Vulkan gap is smaller in percentage terms than OpenCL, it still represents a three-fold performance advantage.

These results are consistent with the broader benchmark landscape. The RX 6400’s average benchmark score across all tests is 6,001, while the M500M’s is 5,604, a difference of 7.1%. However, this average masks the fact that the RX 6400 has been tested across ten different benchmarks, including Passmark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, plus G2D, G3D, and compute tests, while the M500M only has two Geekbench results. In the Passmark G3D test, the RX 6400 scores 7,673, which is a strong showing for its class. Its nearest rivals in the overall database, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M and AMD FirePro W4100, have average scores within 0.3% of the RX 6400, indicating it sits at a performance plateau shared by several mid-range mobile and entry-level desktop parts.

The M500M’s nearest rivals, including the AMD FirePro M4000 and NVIDIA GeForce MX130, have scores within 1.9% of its average, placing it in a lower performance tier. The data confirms that the RX 6400 is not just faster but in a different league, with its OpenCL score exceeding the M500M’s by a factor of 5.3, a gap that no driver optimization or software tweak could realistically bridge.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 has a memory bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M500M’s 14.40 GB/s. This is a 9x difference in favor of the RX 6400.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro M500M support DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: No. The M500M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the RX 6400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2). The RX 6400 also includes ray tracing cores, which the M500M lacks.

Q: What is the performance difference in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The RX 6400 scores 32,011, which is 434.8% higher than the M500M’s 5,986. The RX 6400 wins this benchmark by a wide margin.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller manufacturing process node?

A: The AMD Radeon RX 6400 is built on a 6 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M uses a 28 nm process. The smaller node allows for higher transistor density, 50.5M / mm² versus 13.2M / mm².

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The RX 6400 was released on 2022-01-18, and the M500M was released on 2016-04-26.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The RX 6400 has a pixel rate of 74.27 GPixel/s, significantly higher than the M500M’s 8.992 GPixel/s. This indicates the RX 6400 can process more pixels per second.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon RX 6400 | NVIDIA Quadro M500M |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Process Node | 6 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 5,400 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 107 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 50.5M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1923 MHz | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 2321 MHz | 1124 MHz |

| Game Clock | 2039 MHz | None |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 384 |

| TMUs | 48 | 16 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| RT Cores | 12 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 74.27 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 111.4 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.565 TFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 7.130 TFLOPS (2:1) | None |

| TDP | 53 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x4 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2022-01-18 | 2016-04-26 |

| Launch MSRP | 159 USD | None |