NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M occupy opposite ends of the mobile GPU spectrum, despite sharing the same 28 nm manufacturing process and TSMC foundry. The data reveals a stark performance hierarchy, with the GTX 980M delivering roughly four times the raw compute throughput in the two shared benchmark tests. However, the Quadro M500M’s positioning as a professional-grade mobile solution suggests its purpose lies in specific workloads rather than sheer speed, and the benchmark results invite a closer look at where each chip’s architectural strengths actually manifest.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark results are unambiguous: the GeForce GTX 980M wins both shared tests outright, leaving the Quadro M500M with zero victories. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 980M scores 23832 against the Quadro’s 5986, a delta of -74.9% from the GTX’s perspective, meaning the Quadro trails by nearly three-quarters. The Vulkan test tells a similar story, with the GTX 980M posting 17703 versus the Quadro’s 5222, a -70.5% gap. These aren’t marginal differences; they represent a fundamental compute capability chasm.

Yet the Quadro M500M’s win condition is not in these synthetic tests. It is a Maxwell-based chip (GM108S) with a 30 W TDP, while the GTX 980M (GM204) has no listed TDP but clearly draws substantially more power given its 5,200 million transistors versus 1,020 million. The Quadro’s professional lineage, indicated by its “Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M)” generation, points to certified driver support and optimized performance in specific CAD or scientific applications — areas where raw OpenCL scores don’t tell the full story. The GTX 980M, as a GeForce 900M part, targets gaming and general consumer workloads, where its massive shading unit count (1536 versus 384) and 8 GB GDDR5 memory deliver obvious advantages. For users prioritizing sustained compute throughput or high-resolution texture work, the GTX 980M wins; for those needing a low-power professional mobile solution with validated software stacks, the Quadro M500M holds its niche.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the GeForce GTX 980M in OpenCL compute?

A: The GTX 980M scores 23832 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 298% higher than the Quadro M500M’s 5986. The deltaPct of -74.9% indicates the Quadro’s score is 74.9% lower than the GTX’s.

Q: Does the Quadro M500M win any benchmark comparisons in this dataset?

A: No. In the two shared head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan), the GTX 980M wins both, giving the Quadro 0 wins and the GTX 2 wins.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between these two GPUs?

A: The Quadro M500M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 980M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s — over 11 times the bandwidth.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same architecture generation?

A: No. Both use 28 nm TSMC process, but the Quadro M500M is Maxwell (chip GM108S), while the GTX 980M is Maxwell 2.0 (chip GM204). The GTX supports DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: How do these GPUs compare in terms of transistor density?

A: The Quadro M500M packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, giving 13.2M transistors per mm². The GTX 980M has 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding 13.1M per mm² — nearly identical density despite the 5.1x difference in absolute transistor count.

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each GPU among all GPUs?

A: The Quadro M500M sits at the 32nd percentile, while the GTX 980M ranks at the 31st percentile. This near-identical percentile placement is surprising given the massive benchmark score differences, suggesting the percentile metric weights other factors beyond raw compute.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two shared benchmarks reveal a dominant pattern, but the magnitude deserves scrutiny. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 980M’s 23832 score dwarfs the Quadro’s 5986. That’s a raw difference of 17,846 points, representing a 3.98x multiplier. The deltaPct of -74.9% means the Quadro retains only 25.1% of the GTX’s performance. This aligns with the hardware: the GTX has 1536 shading units versus 384, 96 texture mapping units versus 16, and 64 ROPs versus 8. The GTX’s FP32 throughput of 3.462 TFLOPS is exactly four times the Quadro’s 863.2 GFLOPS, which perfectly matches the 4x shading unit ratio. The benchmark score ratio (3.98x) is almost identical to the theoretical FP32 ratio (4.01x), indicating the OpenCL test is compute-bound and scales linearly with shader count.

The Vulkan test shows a slightly smaller but still decisive gap: 17703 for the GTX versus 5222 for the Quadro, a 3.39x difference with a -70.5% delta. Interestingly, the Vulkan score ratio (3.39x) falls below the FP32 ratio (4.01x), suggesting Vulkan workloads introduce some bottleneck beyond pure compute — likely memory bandwidth. The GTX’s 160.4 GB/s versus the Quadro’s 14.40 GB/s is an 11.1x advantage, yet Vulkan only shows a 3.39x improvement. This implies the GTX’s massive bandwidth headroom isn’t fully utilized in this test, or that the Quadro’s smaller memory footprint (2 GB versus 8 GB) doesn’t penalize it in a synthetic benchmark that fits within both limits. The 64-bit bus on the Quadro would typically cripple memory-heavy workloads, but Vulkan’s score suggests compute efficiency partially compensates.

Notably, the GTX 980M’s average benchmark score across all its tests is 5308, which is actually lower than its OpenCL and Vulkan scores of 23832 and 17703. This is because the average includes many Passmark tests with smaller numbers (e.g., Passmark DirectX 10 score of 35, DirectX 9 score of 125), dragging the mean down. The Quadro’s average of 5604 is higher than its two benchmark scores (5986 and 5222), which is mathematically consistent since both scores are above 5604. This discrepancy in averaging methodology means the average benchmark score is not a reliable cross-GPU comparison metric here, but the head-to-head tests are unambiguous.

Specification Differences

The specification table reveals a generational and class divide. The most glaring difference is memory: the Quadro M500M offers 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus (14.40 GB/s), while the GTX 980M provides 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus (160.4 GB/s). The memory clock differs accordingly — 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the Quadro versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the GTX. This 11.1x bandwidth advantage is the single largest specification gap.

Compute resources diverge by a factor of four: the Quadro has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the GTX has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rate jumps from 8.992 GPixel/s to 72.13 GPixel/s (8.0x), and texture rate from 17.98 GTexel/s to 108.2 GTexel/s (6.0x). FP32 performance scales exactly with shading units: 863.2 GFLOPS versus 3.462 TFLOPS (4.0x). The chip differences are equally stark: GM108S (1,020 million transistors, 77 mm²) versus GM204 (5,200 million transistors, 398 mm²). The die size difference is 5.17x, closely matching the transistor count ratio of 5.10x.

Clock speeds are surprisingly close: the Quadro runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, while the GTX runs at 1038 MHz base and 1127 MHz boost — a mere 0.9% difference. This means the GTX’s performance advantage comes almost entirely from its wider architecture, not higher clocks. The bus interface differs (MXM-A 3.0 versus MXM-B 3.0), and the Quadro’s TDP is listed at 30 W while the GTX has no TDP specified. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. DirectX support differs: the GTX supports 12 (12_1) while the Quadro only supports 12 (11_0), though both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Architecture Differences

Both chips are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but they represent different architectural tiers. The Quadro M500M uses the GM108S chip, a small Maxwell implementation with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The GTX 980M uses GM204, a Maxwell 2.0 design with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical (13.2M/mm² versus 13.1M/mm²), confirming both are mature 28 nm designs. The architectural leap from Maxwell to Maxwell 2.0 brings the GTX improved DirectX 12 support (12_1 versus 11_0), which enables advanced features like conservative rasterization and rasterizer-ordered views that the Quadro cannot access.

The GTX’s memory subsystem is not just wider but faster in type: GDDR5 versus DDR3. This isn’t merely a bandwidth difference; GDDR5 offers lower latency per access and higher efficiency under load. The Quadro’s 64-bit bus is a deliberate low-power choice, keeping the TDP at 30 W, whereas the GTX’s 256-bit bus with 8 GB capacity suggests a design for high-resolution textures and multi-monitor setups. The Quadro’s generation label “Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M)” places it in a professional mobile lineup with predecessors in Quadro Kepler-M and successors in Quadro Pascal-M. The GTX’s “GeForce 900M” generation succeeds GeForce 800M and precedes GeForce 10 Mobile, indicating a consumer-oriented evolution. The Quadro released on 2016-04-26, while the GTX released on 2014-10-06 — the Quadro is actually the newer part by 18 months, yet it trails significantly in compute, highlighting that professional GPUs prioritize stability and certification over raw throughput.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: the GeForce GTX 980M is the overwhelming choice for any workload measured by OpenCL or Vulkan benchmarks. Its 3.98x advantage in OpenCL and 3.39x advantage in Vulkan, combined with 11.1x memory bandwidth and 4x shading units, make it the superior compute and graphics solution for gaming, rendering, and general-purpose GPU tasks. The GTX’s 8 GB GDDR5 frame buffer is essential for modern high-resolution textures, and its DirectX 12 (12_1) support future-proofs it for newer titles. Any user prioritizing frame rates, compute throughput, or memory capacity should select the GTX 980M without hesitation.

The Quadro M500M’s case rests on factors outside these benchmarks. Its 30 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light mobile workstations where power draw and thermal output are critical constraints. The professional Quadro lineage implies validated drivers for CAD, scientific visualization, and other ISV applications — features not captured in Geekbench scores. Its 32nd percentile versus the GTX’s 31st percentile is paradoxical, suggesting the percentile metric accounts for the Quadro’s efficiency or professional feature set. For users running certified applications on low-power mobile workstations, the Quadro M500M offers a purpose-built solution despite its 0-2 benchmark deficit. For everyone else, the GTX 980M’s dominance in every measurable test makes it the definitive pick. The data doesn’t lie: one GPU is four times faster, and the other is four times more power-efficient — choose based on your priority.