NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, if narrow, outcome. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M, a Fermi-era mobile part from 2011, wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 6493 against the Quadro M500M's 5986, a delta of 8.5%. Despite being five years older, the GT 555M holds a performance advantage in this specific compute workload.

However, the verdict is not a simple coronation. The Quadro M500M, part of the Maxwell generation, counters with a significantly higher FP32 throughput rating (863.2 GFLOPS vs. 339.8 GFLOPS), a newer architecture, and double the memory capacity (2 GB vs. 1 GB). The benchmark data suggests that for raw OpenCL compute, the older card wins, but the newer card has structural advantages that may matter in other contexts. The GT 555M's percentile rank (37) is higher than the M500M's (32), and its average benchmark score (6493) exceeds the M500M's average (5604). For users prioritizing the recorded OpenCL result, the GT 555M is the statistical pick. For users who need the larger memory buffer or the architectural features of Maxwell, the M500M is the only logical choice, even if its measured score is lower.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GT 555M wins in the only benchmark where both are measured: Geekbench OpenCL. Its score of 6493 places it 8.5% ahead of the Quadro M500M. This is a decisive, if singular, victory. The GT 555M also wins on memory bandwidth, offering 28.80 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, compared to the M500M's 14.40 GB/s over a 64-bit bus. This doubled bandwidth likely contributes to its OpenCL performance advantage, as compute workloads often stress memory throughput.

The Quadro M500M wins on raw compute capability as specified by the hardware. Its FP32 rate of 863.2 GFLOPS is more than double the GT 555M's 339.8 GFLOPS. It also wins on texture fill rate (17.98 GTexel/s vs. 14.16 GTexel/s) and pixel fill rate (8.992 GPixel/s vs. 3.540 GPixel/s). These figures suggest the M500M should excel in tasks that are heavily shader-bound or pixel-bound, even if the OpenCL test does not reflect this. Furthermore, the M500M's 2 GB memory capacity, double that of the GT 555M, makes it better suited for workloads with larger data sets, such as professional CAD textures or larger frame buffers. The M500M also has a higher shading unit count (384 vs. 144), indicating a fundamentally different compute architecture that, in theory, should process more parallel threads per cycle.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct architectural eras from NVIDIA. The GeForce GT 555M is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF106 chip fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 1,170 million transistors on a die size of 238 mm², yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. Fermi was NVIDIA's first architecture to unify shader cores fully, but its efficiency is lower by modern standards.

The Quadro M500M uses the Maxwell architecture, specifically the GM108S chip, also from TSMC but on a 28 nm process. This chip packs 1,020 million transistors into a much smaller die of just 77 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter, nearly three times denser. Maxwell was designed with a focus on power efficiency and higher per-core performance. The M500M's base clock of 1029 MHz and boost clock of 1124 MHz are notably higher than the GT 555M's unspecified base clock, though the GT 555M's memory clock is identical at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

The memory subsystems differ fundamentally. The GT 555M uses a 128-bit bus with 1024 MB of DDR3, achieving 28.80 GB/s. The M500M uses a 64-bit bus with 2048 MB of DDR3, achieving only 14.40 GB/s. This is a deliberate trade-off: the M500M sacrifices bandwidth for capacity and lower power. The GT 555M has 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs, while the M500M has 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs. The M500M compensates with a higher shading unit count (384 vs. 144), suggesting a design that favors compute over texture and pixel output.

Other differences include the bus interface. The GT 555M uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the M500M uses MXM-A (3.0), a module form factor. The M500M's TDP is 30 W, slightly lower than the GT 555M's 35 W, and it lists a slot width of "MXM Module" with no power connectors, indicating a modular, low-power design. The GT 555M's slot width is not specified. In terms of API support, both reach DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but only the M500M supports Vulkan (version 1.4). The GT 555M's Vulkan support is listed as null.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M scores 6493 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 8.5% higher than the Quadro M500M's score of 5986.

Q: Does the Quadro M500M have any performance advantage based on the data?

A: Yes, the M500M has a higher FP32 throughput rating of 863.2 GFLOPS compared to the GT 555M's 339.8 GFLOPS. It also has a higher texture rate (17.98 GTexel/s vs. 14.16 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (8.992 GPixel/s vs. 3.540 GPixel/s).

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro M500M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the GeForce GT 555M has 1 GB. However, the GT 555M has a wider 128-bit bus and higher bandwidth (28.80 GB/s vs. 14.40 GB/s).

Q: Are these GPUs from the same architecture?

A: No. The GT 555M is based on the Fermi architecture (GF106 chip, 40 nm process), while the M500M is based on the Maxwell architecture (GM108S chip, 28 nm process).

Q: Which GPU supports Vulkan?

A: Only the Quadro M500M lists Vulkan support, at version 1.4. The GeForce GT 555M does not list Vulkan support in the database.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GT 555M has an average benchmark score of 6493, while the M500M's average is 5604. The GT 555M also has a higher percentile rank (37th vs. 32nd).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The GeForce GT 555M delivers a score of 6493, against the Quadro M500M's 5986. This represents an 8.5% lead for the older Fermi card. The nearest rivals for the GT 555M in the database include the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M (score 6481, delta 0.2%) and the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (score 6476, delta 0.3%). The GT 555M sits just above these, and just below the Intel UHD Graphics P750 (score 6554, delta -0.9%). This places it in a tight cluster where a 0.9% difference separates it from the next competitor.

For the Quadro M500M, its nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro M4000 (score 5537, delta 1.2%) and the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (score 5691, delta -1.5%). The M500M's OpenCL score of 5986 is 1.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (score 5508) and 1.9% above the GeForce GTX 765M (score 5501). While the M500M wins against these peers, it loses to the GT 555M.

The delta of 8.5% is the most significant measurable difference between the two cards. Yet, the M500M's Vulkan score of 5222, a benchmark the GT 555M cannot run, indicates a broader API compatibility profile. The GT 555M's victory is confined to the one shared test; the M500M's architectural strengths in FP32, texture, and pixel rates are not reflected in this single metric. The data shows a classic divergence: one card (GT 555M) optimized for a specific compute benchmark's memory pattern, the other (M500M) theoretically superior in raw shader throughput.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs, based solely on the database records:

• Chip: GF106 vs. GM108S
• Architecture: Fermi vs. Maxwell
• Generation: GeForce 500M vs. Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M)
• Process Node: 40 nm vs. 28 nm
• Transistors: 1,170 million vs. 1,020 million
• Die Size: 238 mm² vs. 77 mm²
• Transistor Density: 4.9M / mm² vs. 13.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: null vs. 1029 MHz
• Boost Clock: null vs. 1124 MHz
• Memory Size: 1024 MB vs. 2048 MB
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs. 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 28.80 GB/s vs. 14.40 GB/s
• Shading Units: 144 vs. 384
• TMUs: 24 vs. 16
• ROPs: 16 vs. 8
• Pixel Rate: 3.540 GPixel/s vs. 8.992 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 14.16 GTexel/s vs. 17.98 GTexel/s
• FP32: 339.8 GFLOPS vs. 863.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 35 W vs. 30 W
• Slot Width: null vs. MXM Module
• Power Connectors: null vs. None
• Bus Interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 vs. MXM-A (3.0)
• Vulkan Support: null vs. 1.4
• Release Date: 2011-07-01 vs. 2016-04-26
• Predecessor: GeForce 400M vs. Quadro Kepler-M
• Successor: GeForce 600M vs. Quadro Pascal-M