NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is the clear performance winner in this matchup, beating the Quadro M500M in both shared benchmark tests by significant margins. However, the Quadro M500M is the more power-efficient and architecturally modern option, making it suitable for specific professional workloads where battery life and heat are priorities. The data indicates the GTX 765M is the superior choice for raw compute and graphics tasks, while the M500M offers a compelling alternative in thermally constrained environments.

The Verdict

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the GeForce GTX 765M outperforms the Quadro M500M in every head-to-head comparison available. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 765M scores 7176 against the M500M’s 5986, a 16.6% advantage. The gap widens in Geekbench Vulkan, where the GTX 765M scores 6714 versus 5222, leading by 22.2%. With a 2-0 win record in head-to-head tests, the GTX 765M is the definitive pick for users prioritizing raw performance.

The Quadro M500M, despite losing both benchmarks, is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 5604 is actually 1.9% higher than the GTX 765M’s 5501 average, suggesting it may perform more consistently across a broader range of tests. Additionally, the M500M’s TDP of 30 W is less than half the GTX 765M’s 75 W, making it the obvious choice for thin-and-light laptops where power draw and thermal output are critical constraints.

For gaming or general-purpose compute, the GTX 765M is the only rational choice based on its decisive benchmark wins. For professional applications that favor efficiency, lower power consumption, and the Maxwell architecture’s feature set, the Quadro M500M warrants consideration, particularly in systems where the 45 W power advantage translates directly into longer battery life and quieter operation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is significantly faster, scoring 7176 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the Quadro M500M’s 5986, a 16.6% advantage.

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

A: The GTX 765M again wins decisively, scoring 6714 versus the M500M’s 5222 in Geekbench Vulkan, representing a 22.2% lead.

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score overall?

A: The Quadro M500M has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 5604, which is 1.9% above the GTX 765M’s 5501, despite losing the direct head-to-head tests.

Q: What are the power consumption differences?

A: The Quadro M500M has a TDP of 30 W, while the GeForce GTX 765M has a TDP of 75 W, making the M500M substantially more power-efficient.

Q: Which GPU uses a more advanced architecture?

A: The Quadro M500M uses the Maxwell architecture (chip GM108S), while the GTX 765M uses the older Kepler architecture (chip GK106). Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The Quadro M500M was released in 2016, while the GeForce GTX 765M was released in 2013.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent different architectural generations from NVIDIA. The Quadro M500M is built on the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, while the GeForce GTX 765M uses the older Kepler architecture with the GK106 chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node, but the transistor counts differ dramatically: the GTX 765M packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, whereas the M500M contains only 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die. This results in different transistor densities, with the M500M at 13.2M transistors per mm² versus the GTX 765M’s 11.5M per mm².

The memory subsystems are also architecturally distinct. The M500M uses DDR3 memory with a 64-bit bus, while the GTX 765M employs faster GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. This directly impacts memory bandwidth: the GTX 765M achieves 64.13 GB/s, over four times the M500M’s 14.40 GB/s. The GTX 765M also has double the shading units (768 vs 384), four times the texture mapping units (64 vs 16), and double the raster output units (16 vs 8), reflecting a fundamentally larger and more capable graphics processor.

In terms of API support, both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the M500M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the GTX 765M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.175, giving the newer Maxwell part a slight edge in modern API compatibility. The M500M’s Maxwell architecture also typically offers better performance-per-watt, which aligns with its lower TDP of 30 W compared to the GTX 765M’s 75 W.

Specification Differences

The specification tables reveal stark contrasts between these two mobile GPUs. The most obvious difference is in memory bandwidth: the GTX 765M delivers 64.13 GB/s, while the M500M manages only 14.40 GB/s. This is driven by memory type (GDDR5 vs DDR3) and bus width (128-bit vs 64-bit). Both offer 2 GB of memory, but the GTX 765M’s effective memory clock of 4 Gbps is more than double the M500M’s 1.8 Gbps.

Compute resources differ substantially. The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the M500M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This leads to significant performance metric differences: the GTX 765M’s pixel rate is 13.81 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s for the M500M, and its texture rate is 55.23 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance (FP32) follows the same pattern: the GTX 765M produces 1,325.6 GFLOPS, while the M500M delivers 863.2 GFLOPS.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The M500M has a higher base clock of 1029 MHz and boost clock of 1124 MHz, compared to the GTX 765M’s 797 MHz base and 863 MHz boost. The M500M also uses a different MXM form factor (MXM-A 3.0) versus the GTX 765M’s MXM-B 3.0, and its 30 W TDP is far below the GTX 765M’s 75 W. Both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows the GTX 765M taking a commanding 16.6% lead over the M500M, scoring 7176 against 5986. This result is consistent with the GTX 765M’s substantial hardware advantages: double the shading units, four times the TMUs, and over four times the memory bandwidth. The higher clock speeds of the M500M (1029 MHz vs 797 MHz base) are insufficient to overcome these structural deficits.

The Geekbench Vulkan test amplifies the gap further. Here, the GTX 765M scores 6714 versus the M500M’s 5222, a 22.2% difference. The larger margin in Vulkan may reflect the GTX 765M’s superior raw geometry and fill-rate capabilities, as well as its higher memory bandwidth, which becomes more critical in modern graphics APIs. The M500M’s Vulkan 1.4 support versus the GTX 765M’s 1.2.175 does not translate into a performance advantage in this test.

Interestingly, the average benchmark scores suggest the M500M is more consistent. The M500M’s average of 5604 is 1.9% higher than the GTX 765M’s 5501, and the M500M sits 1.2% above the AMD FirePro M4000 (avg 5537) and 1.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (avg 5508). The GTX 765M, by contrast, is 0.1% below the MX130 (avg 5508) and 0.7% below the AMD FirePro M4000 (avg 5537), indicating it may be slightly less competitive in tests beyond the two head-to-head benchmarks. Both GPUs sit at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, placing them in the same overall performance tier.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 765M wins decisively in raw compute and graphics performance. Its 16.6% lead in OpenCL and 22.2% lead in Vulkan make it the superior choice for gaming, 3D rendering, video encoding, and any workload that leverages GPGPU compute. The 64.13 GB/s memory bandwidth and 768 shading units provide a substantial foundation for demanding applications, and the 1,325.6 GFLOPS FP32 performance is 53.6% higher than the M500M’s 863.2 GFLOPS. For users who need maximum frame rates or shortest render times, the GTX 765M is the only option that makes sense.

The Quadro M500M wins on efficiency and portability. Its 30 W TDP is 45 W lower than the GTX 765M’s 75 W, which can translate into significantly longer battery life in laptops and less heat generation. The smaller die size (77 mm² vs 221 mm²) and lower transistor count (1,020 million vs 2,540 million) suggest a more power-efficient design. The M500M also carries the Quadro branding, which historically implies certified drivers for professional applications, although this is not quantified in the benchmark data. For mobile workstations prioritizing battery endurance and cool operation over peak performance, the M500M is the logical choice.

The M500M’s higher average benchmark score (5604 vs 5501) despite losing both head-to-head tests suggests it may be better optimized for a wider range of workloads, even if it loses in the two specific tests measured. This makes it a more balanced performer, while the GTX 765M is a specialist in brute-force compute. Ultimately, the choice depends on whether raw speed or efficiency is the primary requirement.