NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single head-to-head comparison between these two mobile graphics processors: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this benchmark, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M scores 5986 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M scores 4855 points. The Quadro M500M wins this comparison by a substantial 23.3% margin. This is a decisive victory, placing the Quadro M500M clearly ahead of the older Fermi-based GTX 560M in raw compute performance as measured by OpenCL.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro M500M's average benchmark score of 5604 places it at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M4000 (avg score 5537, 1.2% behind), the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (avg score 5691, 1.5% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (avg score 5508, 1.7% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (avg score 5501, 1.9% behind). This clustering suggests the Quadro M500M sits in a competitive mid-range mobile segment, with its closest competitors all within roughly 2% of its average score.

The GTX 560M, in contrast, has an average benchmark score of 4855 and sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (avg score 4844, 0.2% behind), the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (avg score 4867, 0.2% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (avg score 4893, 0.8% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (avg score 4901, 0.9% ahead). The GTX 560M is effectively locked in a dead heat with these four competitors, with deltas under 1% in either direction. Notably, the GTX 560M also appears in the Quadro M500M's rival list? It does not, but the Quadro M500M's average score is 15.4% higher than the GTX 560M's average score when computed from the two devices' own averages (5604 vs 4855).

The single head-to-head test result is unambiguous: the Quadro M500M outperforms the GTX 560M in OpenCL compute by 23.3%. When considering aggregate averages, the gap narrows slightly to about 15.4%, but the direction remains consistent. The GTX 560M's nearest rival list includes the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, which shows a delta of -0.9%, meaning the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB scores 0.9% higher than the GTX 560M. This is a curious data point, as it suggests the old Fermi chip is within striking distance of a modern card in this particular average metric, though the database records it as such.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M500M wins the only direct benchmark comparison available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 23.3% advantage. This makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that leverage OpenCL, such as general-purpose GPU computing tasks, video encoding acceleration, or any application that offloads parallel math to the GPU. The M500M's higher FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS, compared to the GTX 560M's 595.2 GFLOPS, supports this dominance in raw floating-point compute. The M500M also has twice the shading units (384 vs 192), which directly contributes to its compute lead.

The GTX 560M, despite losing the OpenCL test, retains advantages in other architectural areas that could translate to wins in specific scenarios. Its texture rate of 24.80 GTexel/s is significantly higher than the M500M's 17.98 GTexel/s, a 37.9% advantage. This suggests the GTX 560M could perform relatively better in texture-bound workloads, such as certain types of traditional rasterization where texture fetches are the bottleneck. The GTX 560M also has a much wider memory bus at 192 bits versus 64 bits, and substantially higher memory bandwidth at 60.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, a 4.17x difference. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth limited, such as high-resolution texture streaming or large framebuffer operations, the GTX 560M's GDDR5 memory configuration gives it a theoretical edge.

However, the GTX 560M has no Vulkan support recorded, while the M500M supports Vulkan 1.4. This means the GTX 560M cannot participate in Vulkan-based benchmarks or applications, while the M500M has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 5222. The M500M therefore wins in any Vulkan-specific workload by default, as the GTX 560M has no data or capability in this area.

The M500M also wins on efficiency. Its TDP of 30 W is less than half of the GTX 560M's 75 W. For mobile platforms where thermal and power budgets are constrained, the M500M delivers higher compute performance while drawing significantly less power. The GTX 560M's higher pixel rate of 6.200 GPixel/s versus the M500M's 8.992 GPixel/s is actually a loss for the GTX 560M; the M500M is 45% higher in pixel throughput, which could benefit fill-rate-bound scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural generations from NVIDIA. The Quadro M500M is built on the Maxwell architecture, specifically the GM108S chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The GeForce GTX 560M uses the older Fermi 2.0 architecture with the GF116 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 40 nm corresponds to a substantial reduction in feature size, which typically enables higher transistor density and better power efficiency.

Transistor counts tell an interesting story. The GTX 560M has more transistors at 1,170 million, compared to the M500M's 1,020 million. However, the die sizes are wildly different: the GTX 560M's die is 238 mm², while the M500M's die is only 77 mm². This results in a transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per mm² for the M500M versus 4.9 million per mm² for the GTX 560M. The M500M packs more than 2.7x the transistor density into a much smaller die, a direct consequence of the more advanced 28 nm manufacturing process.

The memory subsystems are completely different. The M500M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 560M uses 1536 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, yielding 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 560M has 4.17x the memory bandwidth, which is a substantial advantage for memory-intensive operations. However, the M500M has slightly more memory capacity (2 GB vs 1536 MB), which could be beneficial for workloads that require larger working sets.

The compute configurations differ markedly. The M500M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The GTX 560M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. This means the M500M has twice the shader count but half the TMUs and a third of the ROPs. The M500M's FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS versus 595.2 GFLOPS reflects its shader advantage. The GTX 560M's texture rate of 24.80 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s reflects its TMU advantage. The M500M's pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s versus 6.200 GPixel/s is interesting, as it achieves a higher pixel rate despite fewer ROPs, likely due to higher clock speeds.

Clock speeds are a notable difference. The M500M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The GTX 560M has no base or boost clock listed in the database, only a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The M500M's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The M500M's higher core clocks contribute to its compute performance, while the GTX 560M's memory clock is faster in effective throughput due to its wider bus and GDDR5 technology.

API support also differs. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The M500M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 560M has no Vulkan support recorded. This is a significant feature gap, as Vulkan is a modern cross-platform graphics and compute API. The M500M also has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 5222, confirming its Vulkan capability.

Power consumption is a major architectural differentiator. The M500M has a TDP of 30 W, while the GTX 560M has a TDP of 75 W. The M500M delivers higher compute performance at less than half the power draw, proof of the efficiency gains of the Maxwell architecture over Fermi. Both use MXM modules, but the M500M uses MXM-A (3.0) while the GTX 560M uses MXM-B (3.0). Neither requires external power connectors, and both have portable-device-dependent display outputs.

The production status for both is end-of-life. The M500M was released later, on 2016-04-26, while the GTX 560M was released earlier, on 2011-05-29. The M500M's predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is the Quadro Pascal-M. The GTX 560M's predecessor is the GeForce 400M and its successor is the GeForce 600M. Neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU performs better in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M scores 5986 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M scores 4855. The M500M wins by 23.3% in this direct head-to-head comparison.

Q: Does the GTX 560M have any advantages over the M500M?

A: Yes, the GTX 560M has a higher texture rate (24.80 GTexel/s vs 17.98 GTexel/s) and substantially higher memory bandwidth (60.00 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s) due to its 192-bit GDDR5 memory bus versus the M500M's 64-bit DDR3 bus.

Q: What API support differences exist between the two?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The M500M also supports Vulkan 1.4 with a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 5222, while the GTX 560M has no Vulkan support recorded.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The M500M has a TDP of 30 W, while the GTX 560M has a TDP of 75 W. The M500M delivers higher compute performance at less than half the power draw.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The M500M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 560M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 60.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The M500M has 384 shading units, double the GTX 560M's 192 shading units. This contributes to the M500M's higher FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS versus 595.2 GFLOPS.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner: the NVIDIA Quadro M500M. It wins the only direct benchmark comparison by 23.3%, has a higher average benchmark score (5604 vs 4855), sits at a higher percentile (32nd vs 28th), and delivers this performance at a TDP of 30 W versus 75 W. The M500M also supports Vulkan 1.4, a feature the GTX 560M lacks entirely. For any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan, the M500M is the superior choice.

The GTX 560M's remaining strengths are in memory bandwidth and texture throughput. Its 60.00 GB/s bandwidth and 24.80 GTexel/s texture rate exceed the M500M's 14.40 GB/s and 17.98 GTexel/s, respectively. For applications that are heavily bandwidth-bound or texture-bound, such as certain legacy rasterization scenarios, the GTX 560M could theoretically perform relatively better. However, its lack of Vulkan support and lower compute performance make it a less versatile option.

The M500M's higher transistor density (13.2M / mm² vs 4.9M / mm²) and smaller die (77 mm² vs 238 mm²) reflect a more modern and efficient design. Its 2 GB memory capacity also edges out the GTX 560M's 1536 MB. The M500M's boost clock of 1124 MHz provides additional performance headroom, while the GTX 560M has no recorded boost clock.

Users seeking a mobile GPU for modern compute tasks, especially those involving OpenCL or Vulkan, should favor the Quadro M500M. Users with legacy applications that depend heavily on memory bandwidth or texture throughput might find the GTX 560M's specifications intriguing, but the benchmark data does not support an overall performance win for the GTX 560M. The M500M is the better-rounded and higher-performing GPU according to the recorded measurements.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M500M | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | Fermi 2.0 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

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

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 238 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 1029 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1124 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective | 625 MHz / 2.5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1536 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 60.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 192 |

| TMUs | 16 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.992 GPixel/s | 6.200 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.98 GTexel/s | 24.80 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 863.2 GFLOPS | 595.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | 75 W |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Release Date | 2016-04-26 | 2011-05-29 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler-M | GeForce 400M |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal-M | GeForce 600M |