NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M scores 6389 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M scores 5986. The GTX 580M wins by 6.7%.

Q: Does the Quadro M500M support any API that the GTX 580M does not?

A: Yes. The Quadro M500M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 580M has no Vulkan support listed in the database. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The GTX 580M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M500M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 580M has a six-fold bandwidth advantage.

Q: Which card has the higher transistor density?

A: The Quadro M500M, built on a 28 nm process, packs 13.2M transistors per mm² across a 77 mm² die. The GTX 580M, on a 40 nm process, has 5.9M transistors per mm² on a 332 mm² die.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The GTX 580M is rated at 100 W TDP, while the Quadro M500M is rated at 30 W TDP. The M500M consumes 70% less power.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 580M delivers 9.920 GPixel/s versus the Quadro M500M’s 8.992 GPixel/s, a lead of roughly 10% for the older Fermi card.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 580M is the clear winner in raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 6389 places it ahead of the Quadro M500M’s 5986 by 6.7%. The GTX 580M also leads in pixel rate (9.920 GPixel/s vs 8.992 GPixel/s) and texture rate (39.68 GTexel/s vs 17.98 GTexel/s). For any workload that stresses shading, texturing, or memory bandwidth, the GTX 580M holds a decided edge.

The Quadro M500M wins in efficiency and API modernity. It operates at 30 W TDP versus 100 W, making it suitable for thermally constrained thin-and-light mobile workstations. It also supports Vulkan 1.4, a feature entirely absent from the GTX 580M’s feature set. Additionally, the M500M’s Maxwell architecture is newer, with a higher transistor density (13.2M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm²), which reflects a more advanced manufacturing process.

In the single recorded head-to-head OpenCL benchmark, the GTX 580M takes the only win. The database shows no benchmark where the Quadro M500M outperforms the GTX 580M. However, the M500M’s Vulkan support gives it a path for modern graphics workloads that the GTX 580M cannot access at all.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 580M is built on Fermi 2.0 with the GF114 chip, manufactured on TSMC’s 40 nm process. It contains 1,950 million transistors on a die size of 332 mm². The architecture features 384 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Its memory interface is 256-bit, paired with GDDR5 memory. The Fermi design emphasizes peak throughput across all front-end and back-end units, which explains its strong fill rates and compute scores.

The Quadro M500M uses Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, built on a 28 nm process. It has 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller die of 77 mm². The M500M also has 384 shading units, but only 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs. Its memory interface is 64-bit, using DDR3 memory. Maxwell’s design philosophy focuses on efficiency per watt, and the smaller die and newer process allow for much lower power consumption.

The transistor density difference is stark: 5.9M / mm² for Fermi versus 13.2M / mm² for Maxwell. This is a direct result of the process node shrink from 40 nm to 28 nm. Despite having fewer total transistors, the M500M achieves a higher density, indicating a more compact and power-efficient layout.

Both cards share the same shading unit count (384), but the GTX 580M allocates more resources to texture and pixel processing. The GTX 580M’s 64 TMUs and 32 ROPs are 4x and 4x the M500M’s 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs, respectively. This architectural divergence explains why the GTX 580M posts higher texture and pixel rates despite similar shader counts.

The GTX 580M has no Vulkan support, while the M500M supports Vulkan 1.4. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The M500M’s Maxwell architecture includes newer instruction scheduling and memory compression techniques, which can improve effective bandwidth utilization even with a narrower bus.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 580M | NVIDIA Quadro M500M |

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

| Chip | GF114 | GM108S |

| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 | Maxwell |

| Generation | GeForce 500M | Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Bus Width | 256 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |

| TMUs | 64 | 16 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 9.920 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 39.68 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 952.3 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 30 W |

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

| Vulkan | Not supported | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2011-06-27 | 2016-04-26 |

The most consequential differences are memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs 14.40 GB/s), TMU count (64 vs 16), ROP count (32 vs 8), and TDP (100 W vs 30 W). The GTX 580M’s older, larger design uses more power to deliver higher throughput, while the M500M’s modern, compact design trades performance for efficiency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head benchmark: Geekbench OpenCL. The GTX 580M scores 6389, while the Quadro M500M scores 5986. The delta is 6.7% in favor of the GTX 580M. This is a modest but consistent lead, given that the GTX 580M also has a higher FP32 rating (952.3 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS) and nearly seven times the memory bandwidth.

The GTX 580M’s wins are concentrated in memory-intensive and texture-heavy workloads. Its 96.00 GB/s bandwidth dwarfs the M500M’s 14.40 GB/s, making the Fermi card far more capable in scenarios where large data sets must be streamed to the shaders. The texture rate of 39.68 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s further cements this advantage for filtering and sampling operations.

The Quadro M500M’s only functional wins are in power efficiency and API support. It consumes 30 W versus 100 W, and it supports Vulkan 1.4. In the recorded OpenCL test, it trails by 6.7%, and the database shows no benchmark where the M500M takes the lead. The M500M’s average benchmark score is 5604, which is below its OpenCL score due to the inclusion of a Vulkan score of 5222 in its average.

The GTX 580M’s percentile rank among all GPUs is 37, while the M500M sits at 32. The GTX 580M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE at equal score (6389, delta 0%), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 5000 72 GB Blackwell at 6407 (delta -0.3%), and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 at 6330 (delta 0.9%). The M500M’s nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 (delta 1.2%), the AMD Radeon HD 8790M at 5691 (delta -1.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508 (delta 1.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (delta 1.9%).

The data indicates that the GTX 580M, despite being five years older, outperforms the M500M in raw compute. The M500M’s advantages are architectural modernity and power draw, not performance. For any application that can leverage Vulkan, the M500M is the only choice between these two. For pure OpenCL compute, the GTX 580M is the stronger option, with a 6.7% lead that is consistent with its higher fill rates and broader memory bus.

The FP32 gap is 952.3 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS, a 10.3% advantage for the GTX 580M. This aligns closely with the 6.7% OpenCL delta, suggesting that the benchmark result is a fair representation of real compute capability. The M500M’s lower memory bandwidth (14.40 GB/s) likely constrains its performance in memory-bound kernels, even though its Maxwell architecture has better instruction efficiency.

In summary, the head-to-head data shows a single clear winner: the GTX 580M takes the compute crown by 6.7%. The M500M counters with Vulkan support, a 70 W lower TDP, and a much smaller die, but it cannot match the Fermi card’s throughput in the recorded tests.