NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX and NVIDIA Quadro M500M represent two distinct design philosophies from the same manufacturer, separated by nearly four years of architectural evolution. The GTX 670MX, a Kepler-based part from the GeForce 600M generation, is the older and larger chip, while the Quadro M500M is a Maxwell-based professional mobile solution. Benchmark results place them remarkably close in overall performance, with the GTX 670MX holding a narrow but consistent lead across both compute and graphics workloads. The data shows a familiar story: a high-power, high-throughput consumer chip facing off against a lower-power, efficiency-focused professional part, with the former edging out the latter in raw speed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark tests available—Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan—both register wins for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX, but the margins are slim. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 670MX scores 6125 against the Quadro M500M’s 5986, yielding a delta of 2.3%. This is not a decisive victory; rather, it places the two cards within striking distance of each other, with the GTX 670MX’s advantage likely stemming from its substantially wider memory interface and higher raw shading throughput.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a similar pattern. The GTX 670MX posts a score of 5316, while the Quadro M500M trails at 5222, a difference of 1.8%. Vulkan performance is particularly sensitive to driver overhead and command buffer processing, and while both cards support the API, the older Kepler architecture’s higher shader count appears to compensate for any Maxwell-era efficiency gains in this workload. With two wins out of two, the GTX 670MX takes the head-to-head sweep, but the average margin of roughly 2% suggests these GPUs are functionally peers in general-purpose compute tasks.

Context from the nearestRivals data reinforces this tight grouping. The GTX 670MX’s average benchmark score of 5721 is just 0.2% higher than the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 (5712) and 0.5% above the AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691). Meanwhile, the Quadro M500M’s average score of 5604 sits 1.2% above the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537) and 1.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508). The two cards are separated by only 2.1% in average score, with the GTX 670MX ahead. This places both in the lower third of all GPUs—the GTX 670MX at the 33rd percentile and the Quadro M500M at the 32nd—meaning neither is a performance leader, but both are credible entry-level mobile parts.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast, even if their benchmark scores are not. The GTX 670MX is built on the GK104 chip using the Kepler architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The Quadro M500M, by contrast, uses the GM108S chip with the Maxwell architecture, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with only 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 13.2M per mm². This size difference is the single largest hardware divergence: the GTX 670MX is nearly four times larger in die area.

The compute resources reflect this disparity. The GTX 670MX features 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster operation units (ROPs). The Quadro M500M is far more modest, with 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. Clock speeds partially compensate for the Quadro’s smaller configuration: it runs at a base of 1029 MHz and boosts to 1124 MHz, while the GTX 670MX is locked at 601 MHz for both base and boost. Despite the lower clocks, the GTX 670MX’s sheer parallel width gives it higher peak rates—12.02 GPixel/s pixel fillrate and 48.08 GTexel/s texture rate versus the Quadro’s 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance follows suit: the GTX 670MX delivers 1,153.9 GFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro M500M manages 863.2 GFLOPS.

Memory subsystems could not be more different. The GTX 670MX uses 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, providing 67.20 GB/s of bandwidth at an effective 2.8 Gbps. The Quadro M500M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a narrow 64-bit bus, yielding just 14.40 GB/s at 1800 Mbps effective. This is a 4.7x bandwidth advantage for the GTX 670MX, which is critical for texture-heavy workloads and large dataset compute. The Quadro’s 30 W TDP, however, is less than half the GTX 670MX’s 75 W, making it a far more power-efficient design. The GTX 670MX uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro M500M is an MXM-A (3.0) module, reflecting its mobile professional orientation. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan, though the Quadro lists Vulkan 1.4 versus the GTX 670MX’s 1.2.175. The GTX 670MX was released in late 2012, while the Quadro M500M arrived in mid-2016, with the former’s predecessor being GeForce 500M and the latter’s being Quadro Kepler-M.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 670MX wins in every measured benchmark, but its strengths are more pronounced in specific scenarios. Its massive memory bandwidth advantage—67.20 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s—makes it the clear choice for applications that stream large textures or process large data arrays, such as 3D rendering, video editing, or scientific compute. The higher pixel and texture rates (12.02 GPixel/s and 48.08 GTexel/s) also favor it in traditional rasterization workloads, where fillrate-bound scenes will see better frame pacing. The 3 GB frame buffer, while modest by modern standards, is 50% larger than the Quadro’s 2 GB, providing more headroom for multi-monitor setups or higher-resolution textures in professional visualization.

The Quadro M500M, despite losing both benchmarks, has clear niches. Its 30 W TDP means it can be deployed in thinner, lighter laptops without aggressive cooling, and its MXM-A form factor is designed for modular professional workstations. The higher boost clock of 1124 MHz suggests better single-threaded or latency-sensitive performance in lightly threaded tasks, though the benchmark data does not isolate this. For mobile professionals who prioritize battery life and thermal comfort over raw throughput, the Quadro’s lower power draw is a significant operational advantage. Its Vulkan 1.4 support also indicates more recent driver maturity for modern API workloads, even if the GTX 670MX scores higher in the current Vulkan test. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, so those features are absent from both.

FAQ

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

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX scores 6125, which is 2.3% higher than the Quadro M500M’s 5986. This gives the GTX 670MX the win in OpenCL compute.

Q: How do the two cards compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The GTX 670MX also leads in Vulkan, posting 5316 against the Quadro M500M’s 5222, a margin of 1.8%. The GTX 670MX wins this test as well.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The GTX 670MX has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 67.20 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M500M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count?

A: The GTX 670MX contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the Quadro M500M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The GTX 670MX has a TDP of 75 W, whereas the Quadro M500M draws only 30 W. The Quadro is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which card has a higher shading unit count?

A: The GTX 670MX has 960 shading units, while the Quadro M500M has 384. However, the Quadro operates at a higher clock speed (1029 MHz base, 1124 MHz boost) compared to the GTX 670MX’s 601 MHz.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX is the faster GPU, winning both available benchmarks by roughly 2% and offering substantially higher raw throughput in terms of fillrate, texture rate, and FP32 compute (1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS). Its 4.7x memory bandwidth advantage is a decisive factor for any memory-intensive workload, and the larger 3 GB frame buffer provides additional flexibility. Anyone prioritizing raw performance in a mobile workstation or gaming laptop should choose the GTX 670MX.

However, the Quadro M500M is not without merit. Its 30 W TDP is less than half that of the GTX 670MX, making it the better choice for ultra-portable or thermally constrained systems. The newer Maxwell architecture, represented by the GM108S chip, offers higher transistor density (13.2M / mm²) and a more recent Vulkan 1.4 API implementation, suggesting better long-term driver support for modern software. The Quadro’s professional lineage (predecessor: Quadro Kepler-M) also implies validated performance for specific ISV applications, though this is not quantified in the provided benchmarks. For users who need a low-power, compact MXM module for professional work and can tolerate lower bandwidth and compute, the Quadro M500M is the sensible pick. For everyone else, the GTX 670MX’s benchmark wins and superior memory subsystem make it the stronger performer, even at the cost of significantly higher power consumption.