NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro M500M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M represent two distinct mobile GPU strategies from different generations, with the Quadro M500M built on Maxwell architecture and released in 2016 while the GTX 760M uses Kepler architecture from 2013. Despite the Quadro's newer design and lower power envelope, both cards land in remarkably similar performance territory, with the Quadro M500M holding a 7% average benchmark advantage. The data reveals that the M500M wins both head-to-head tests, yet the underlying hardware differences tell a more complex story about how each GPU approaches compute and graphics workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M500M claims victory in both available benchmark tests, making it the clear winner in raw compute performance. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M500M scores 5986 against the GTX 760M's 5604, a 6.8% advantage. The Vulkan test shows a similar pattern, with the M500M scoring 5222 versus 4868, a 7.3% lead. These wins suggest the M500M's architectural efficiency compensates for its smaller hardware footprint.

The GTX 760M's strengths lie elsewhere. With a significantly larger die and more shading units, texture mapping units, and render output units, the GTX 760M theoretically excels in geometry-heavy and fill-rate-limited scenarios. Its pixel rate of 11.50 GPixel/s and texture rate of 46.02 GTexel/s dwarf the M500M's 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s. For applications that stress texture throughput or pixel fill, the GTX 760M's raw resources would likely provide an advantage, even if the synthetic benchmarks captured here do not reflect it.

The M500M also positions itself better in terms of API support, offering Vulkan 1.4 compared to the GTX 760M's Vulkan 1.2.175. This newer API version could translate to better performance in modern Vulkan-based applications, aligning with the M500M's observed 7.3% Vulkan lead.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations, which fundamentally shapes their capabilities. The Quadro M500M uses the GM108S chip built on Maxwell architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,020 million transistors into a compact 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. The GTX 760M, in contrast, uses the GK106S chip with Kepler architecture, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but with 2,540 million transistors spread across a much larger 221 mm² die, resulting in 11.5 million transistors per square millimeter.

The Maxwell architecture in the M500M emphasizes efficiency per transistor, which explains how it achieves competitive performance with roughly 40% of the GTX 760M's transistor budget. The Kepler architecture in the GTX 760M focuses on raw parallel throughput, evidenced by its 768 shading units versus the M500M's 384. The GTX 760M also has 64 texture mapping units and 16 render output units, quadruple and double the M500M's counts respectively.

Memory subsystems differ substantially. The M500M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 760M pairs its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus, achieving 64.13 GB/s — over four times the bandwidth. This disparity means memory-intensive workloads would heavily favor the GTX 760M, though the M500M's higher clock speeds partially offset this in compute tasks.

Power consumption tells a different efficiency story. The M500M draws just 30 W, while the GTX 760M requires 55 W, making the M500M nearly twice as power-efficient per watt. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors, but the GTX 760M connects via PCIe 3.0 x16 while the M500M uses the MXM-A (3.0) interface.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better overall benchmark performance?

A: The Quadro M500M wins both head-to-head tests. It scores 5986 versus 5604 in Geekbench OpenCL and 5222 versus 4868 in Geekbench Vulkan, for an average benchmark score of 5604 versus the GTX 760M's 5236.

Q: How do their average scores compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The M500M's 5604 average sits 1.2% above the AMD FirePro M4000 (5537) and 1.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508). The GTX 760M's 5236 average is 0.5% above the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211) and 1.5% above the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161).

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The Quadro M500M runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, substantially higher than the GTX 760M's 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost. The M500M's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) while the GTX 760M's memory runs at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The GTX 760M has a 128-bit bus with GDDR5 memory providing 64.13 GB/s, while the M500M uses a 64-bit bus with DDR3 memory delivering 14.40 GB/s — a 4.5x bandwidth advantage for the GTX 760M.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the M500M supports Vulkan 1.4 while the GTX 760M only reaches Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How do their compute capabilities compare?

A: The GTX 760M has higher peak FP32 performance at 1,104.4 GFLOPS versus the M500M's 863.2 GFLOPS, yet the M500M scores higher in both Geekbench compute tests, suggesting better architectural efficiency.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge across nearly every hardware specification. The M500M uses the GM108S chip (Maxwell) while the GTX 760M uses the GK106S chip (Kepler). The M500M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die with 13.2M/mm² density; the GTX 760M has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die with 11.5M/mm² density. Clock speeds favor the M500M at 1029/1124 MHz base/boost versus 628/719 MHz. Memory configurations differ completely: the M500M uses 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus at 14.40 GB/s, while the GTX 760M uses 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 64.13 GB/s. The M500M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs; the GTX 760M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel and texture rates favor the GTX 760M (11.50 GPixel/s and 46.02 GTexel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s), but FP32 performance also favors it (1,104.4 GFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS). The M500M draws 30 W versus 55 W. The M500M connects via MXM-A (3.0) while the GTX 760M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The M500M supports Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.175. Release dates differ significantly: M500M in 2016, GTX 760M in 2013.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the M500M winning with 5986 points against the GTX 760M's 5604, a 6.8% margin. This result is notable because the GTX 760M has double the shading units and 4.5x the memory bandwidth, yet the M500M's Maxwell architecture and higher clocks (1029 MHz base versus 628 MHz) overcome those disadvantages. The M500M's 863.2 GFLOPS FP32 output trails the GTX 760M's 1,104.4 GFLOPS, but the workload clearly favors the M500M's compute efficiency.

The Vulkan benchmark repeats the pattern. The M500M scores 5222 against 4868, a 7.3% lead. This wider margin likely reflects the M500M's newer Vulkan 1.4 support compared to the GTX 760M's Vulkan 1.2.175. The M500M's average benchmark score of 5604 places it at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 760M's 5236 average places it at the 31st percentile. The M500M's performance relative to its nearest rival (AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537) shows a 1.2% lead, while the GTX 760M's closest competitor (NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5211) trails by 0.5%.

Both GPUs show interesting competitive dynamics. The M500M's rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, which it beats by 1.9%, and the AMD Radeon HD 8790M, which it trails by 1.5%. The GTX 760M's rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M, which it trails by 1.3%, and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M, which it beats by 0.9%. These tight margins suggest both cards sit in a crowded mid-range mobile segment where small architectural advantages determine winners.

The Verdict

The data points to the Quadro M500M as the stronger GPU for compute-oriented workloads, winning both benchmark tests with a 6.8% to 7.3% margin. Its Maxwell architecture delivers better efficiency per transistor, achieving higher scores despite fewer shading units and far less memory bandwidth. The M500M's 30 W power draw versus 55 W makes it substantially more suitable for thin-and-light mobile workstations where thermal and power constraints matter. Its newer Vulkan 1.4 support also positions it better for modern applications.

The GTX 760M retains advantages in raw graphics throughput. Its 64.13 GB/s memory bandwidth, 46.02 GTexel/s texture rate, and 11.50 GPixel/s pixel rate suggest it would outperform the M500M in texture-heavy or fill-rate-limited games and applications. Its 768 shading units provide higher theoretical compute capacity (1,104.4 GFLOPS), even if the synthetic benchmarks do not capture that advantage. The GTX 760M's larger 221 mm² die with 2,540 million transistors indicates a more robust hardware foundation for demanding workloads.

Users requiring maximum compute performance per watt should choose the M500M. Users prioritizing memory bandwidth, texture throughput, and pixel fill rates should choose the GTX 760M. The M500M's 32nd percentile ranking versus the GTX 760M's 31st percentile confirms their near-parity, but the M500M's more recent release, lower power consumption, and newer API support make it the more future-proof option. The GTX 760M's higher peak FP32 and faster memory could still make it preferable for specific legacy workloads that exploit Kepler's parallel architecture.