NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti and NVIDIA Quadro M500M represent two distinct eras of mobile and desktop GPU design, separated by five years and a fundamental shift in architectural philosophy. The data shows a close contest in raw compute, but the underlying specifications reveal why these cards were built for entirely different purposes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro M500M outperforms the GTX 550 Ti. The M500M scores 5986, while the GTX 550 Ti trails at 5731, yielding a delta of -4.3% for the older card. This is a narrow margin — roughly 4.3% in favor of the Maxwell-based mobile workstation part.

Contextualizing the GTX 550 Ti’s score against its closest rivals shows it sits in a tightly packed cluster. The GeForce GTX 670MX scores 5721 (just 0.2% behind), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 scores 5712 (0.3% behind), and the AMD Radeon HD 8790M scores 5691 (0.7% behind). The only rival that beats it meaningfully is the AMD Radeon R7 M465 at 5841, which is 1.9% faster. The GTX 550 Ti’s 5731 score places it at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, indicating it sits squarely in the lower-middle tier of the historical performance spectrum.

The Quadro M500M’s position is similar but slightly different. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 (1.2% behind the M500M), the AMD Radeon HD 8790M at 5691 (1.5% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508 (1.7% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (1.9% behind). The M500M’s percentile ranking is 32, essentially tied with the GTX 550 Ti despite the higher OpenCL score. This is because the M500M’s average benchmark score of 5604 is dragged down by its additional Vulkan result of 5222, which is substantially lower than its OpenCL output.

The 4.3% OpenCL advantage for the M500M is meaningful but not transformative. In practical terms, this translates to slightly better compute throughput in OpenCL workloads, but the delta is small enough that driver optimization and workload type could easily reverse the outcome. The GTX 550 Ti holds its own remarkably well given its age, and the data suggests that in compute tasks, the architectural leap from Fermi to Maxwell did not deliver a generational leap in raw OpenCL performance at this particular performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 550 Ti is built on the GF116 chip using Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million transistors per square millimeter. This is a relatively large, power-hungry design for its era, with a thermal design power of 116 W requiring a dual-slot cooler and a single 6-pin power connector, along with a suggested 300 W power supply.

The Quadro M500M uses the GM108S chip with Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter — nearly 2.7 times denser than the Fermi chip. This dramatic density improvement is a direct result of the process node shrink. The M500M sips power at just 30 W TDP, uses no power connectors, and comes in an MXM Module form factor designed for laptops and mobile workstations.

The memory subsystems diverge significantly. The GTX 550 Ti uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 98.50 GB/s of bandwidth. The M500M has double the capacity at 2 GB, but uses DDR3 on a narrow 64-bit bus, resulting in just 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth — a 6.8x deficit. This is the single largest architectural gap between the two, and it has profound implications for memory-bound workloads.

Compute resources tell a different story. The GTX 550 Ti has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The M500M doubles the shading units to 384, but halves the TMUs to 16 and cuts ROPs to 8. The result is that the M500M achieves higher pixel throughput (8.992 GPixel/s vs 7.200 GPixel/s) but much lower texture throughput (17.98 GTexel/s vs 28.80 GTexel/s). In FP32 compute, the M500M leads with 863.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS for the GTX 550 Ti.

Clock behavior also differs. The GTX 550 Ti lists only its memory clock at 1026 MHz (4.1 Gbps effective), with no base or boost clock specified. The M500M runs at a 1029 MHz base clock with a 1124 MHz boost, while its memory operates at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The M500M’s boost capability is significant for burst workloads, whereas the GTX 550 Ti’s fixed clock suggests less dynamic power management.

Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the M500M adds Vulkan 1.4 support while the GTX 550 Ti lists no Vulkan capability. The bus interfaces reflect their respective platforms: PCIe 2.0 x16 for the desktop GTX 550 Ti, and MXM-A (3.0) for the mobile M500M. Display outputs are also environment-specific — dual DVI and mini-HDMI 1.3a for the GTX 550 Ti, versus portable-device-dependent outputs for the M500M.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro M500M wins the OpenCL benchmark with a score of 5986, which is 4.3% higher than the GTX 550 Ti’s 5731. This aligns with the M500M’s higher FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The GTX 550 Ti has a massive advantage, offering 98.50 GB/s over a 192-bit GDDR5 interface. The M500M manages only 14.40 GB/s on a 64-bit DDR3 bus. This is a 6.8x difference in favor of the older card.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The GTX 550 Ti consumes 116 W and requires a 6-pin power connector along with a 300 W suggested power supply. The M500M draws only 30 W and uses no power connectors, making it suitable for MXM-A (3.0) mobile slots.

Q: Do both cards support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the M500M also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 550 Ti has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The M500M has 384 shading units, exactly double the GTX 550 Ti’s 192. However, the GTX 550 Ti has more texture mapping units (32 vs 16) and more ROPs (24 vs 8).

Q: How do their manufacturing processes differ?

A: The GTX 550 Ti uses a 40 nm TSMC process, while the M500M uses a 28 nm TSMC process. The newer node allows the M500M to pack 13.2M transistors per mm² versus 4.9M for the GTX 550 Ti, despite having fewer total transistors (1,020 million vs 1,170 million).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti | NVIDIA Quadro M500M |

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

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Maxwell |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 238 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 4.9M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | N/A | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | N/A | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1026 MHz (4.1 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 98.50 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 192 | 384 |

| TMUs | 32 | 16 |

| ROPs | 24 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.200 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 28.80 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 691.2 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 116 W | 30 W |

| Slot Width | Dual-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | N/A |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan Support | N/A | 1.4 |

| Dimensions | 210 mm (8.3 inches) | N/A |

| Release Date | 2011-03-14 | 2016-04-26 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 400 | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Successor | GeForce 600 | Quadro Pascal-M |

| Launch MSRP | 149 USD | N/A |

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 550 Ti is the clear winner in memory-intensive scenarios. Its 98.50 GB/s of bandwidth is a 6.8x advantage over the M500M, making it vastly superior for workloads that repeatedly access large textures or data sets that exceed the M500M’s narrow 64-bit bus. The higher texture rate of 28.80 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s also gives it an edge in traditional 3D rendering where texture filtering is the bottleneck. The dual-slot desktop form factor and PCIe 2.0 x16 interface make it suitable for older desktop systems with adequate power delivery, given its 116 W TDP and 300 W suggested PSU.

The Quadro M500M wins on compute throughput and efficiency. Its 863.2 GFLOPS FP32 performance exceeds the GTX 550 Ti by 24.9%, and its higher pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s indicates better fill-rate-bound performance. The 384 shading units, double that of the GTX 550 Ti, provide more parallel execution resources for shader-heavy compute tasks. Its 30 W TDP makes it ideal for thin-and-light mobile workstations where power and thermal constraints are paramount. The 2 GB memory capacity, though slower, allows larger working sets to reside on the GPU without spilling to system memory. Vulkan 1.4 support future-proofs it for modern graphics APIs, whereas the GTX 550 Ti is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

The benchmarking data reflects this split: the M500M’s OpenCL score of 5986 beats the GTX 550 Ti’s 5731, consistent with the compute-oriented design philosophy of Maxwell. However, the narrow 4.3% margin suggests that for OpenCL workloads specifically, the GTX 550 Ti’s superior memory bandwidth partially compensates for its fewer compute units. In Vulkan, which the M500M supports, its score of 5222 is notably lower than its OpenCL result, indicating that even within the M500M’s feature set, performance varies considerably by API.

For a desktop user with an existing Fermi-era system, the GTX 550 Ti offers competitive compute performance with far better memory bandwidth and texture throughput. For a mobile workstation user prioritizing battery life and thermal headroom, the M500M provides higher compute output in a fraction of the power envelope. The choice ultimately hinges on the workload’s memory access patterns and the physical constraints of the target platform.