NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum. The database records an average benchmark score of 6270 for the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, while the Quadro M500M averages 5604. That is a 666-point gap, roughly 11.9% when calculated from the lower score. However, the real story is not the average; it is the nature of the workloads each card was designed for. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is a desktop enthusiast part built for high-resolution gaming and compute, while the Quadro M500M is a low-power mobile workstation chip from 2016. The data shows no shared benchmark tests between them, so this analysis relies on recorded specifications, architectural details, and each card's nearest rivals in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

There are no direct head-to-head benchmark results in the database for these two products. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has one recorded test: 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12, scoring 6269.5. The Quadro M500M has two recorded tests: Geekbench OpenCL at 5986 and Geekbench Vulkan at 5222. These tests are not comparable because they measure different APIs and workloads. The 3DMark Steel Nomad test is a modern DirectX 12 rendering benchmark, while Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan are compute-focused tests that also stress graphics. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102's single score of 6269.5 aligns closely with its average benchmark score of 6270, suggesting consistency. The Quadro M500M's average of 5604 sits below its OpenCL score but above its Vulkan score, indicating variance between test types.

When comparing to nearest rivals, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 sits at the 36th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, has an average score of 6270, a 0% delta. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 averages 6282, which is 0.2% higher than the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102. The AMD FirePro W600 averages 6223, which is 0.8% lower. The AMD Radeon R7 M350 averages 6327, which is 0.9% higher. These deltas are tiny, all within 1%, meaning the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is effectively clustered with a set of very different GPUs in aggregate scoring. That is a reminder that average scores flatten out architectural strengths.

The Quadro M500M holds the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD FirePro M4000, averages 5537, which is 1.2% lower. The AMD Radeon HD 8790M averages 5691, which is 1.5% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 averages 5508, which is 1.7% lower. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M averages 5501, which is 1.9% lower. The Quadro M500M sits just above its closest competitors in aggregate score, but the margin is thin. These rivals are all older mobile or low-power parts, confirming the Quadro M500M's position as a modest performer in its class.

Given the absence of shared benchmarks, the head-to-head comparison must be read through specification deltas. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has 8448 shading units, while the Quadro M500M has 384. That is a 22x difference in raw shading hardware. The texture mapping units are 264 versus 16, a 16.5x difference. The raster output units are 96 versus 8, a 12x difference. These are not close matchups; they are different product categories.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 records an average benchmark score of 6270, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M averages 5604. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is ahead by 666 points.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card in the database?

A: For the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102, the nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6270, 0% delta), NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282, -0.2%), AMD FirePro W600 (6223, 0.8%), and AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6327, -0.9%). For the Quadro M500M, rivals are AMD FirePro M4000 (5537, 1.2%), AMD Radeon HD 8790M (5691, -1.5%), NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, 1.7%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, 1.9%).

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has a memory bandwidth of 672.3 GB/s, using 16 GB of GDDR6X on a 256-bit bus. The Quadro M500M has 14.40 GB/s, using 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. The RTX card offers nearly 47 times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 includes 66 ray tracing cores. The Quadro M500M has no recorded ray tracing cores. The architecture difference is clear: Ada Lovelace supports hardware ray tracing, Maxwell does not.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is built on a 5 nm process at TSMC, with 76,300 million transistors on a 609 mm² die. The Quadro M500M uses a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Q: Which card has a higher transistor density?

A: The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has a transistor density of 125.3 million per mm². The Quadro M500M has 13.2 million per mm². The newer card packs nearly 10 times more transistors per area.

Architecture Differences

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is built on Ada Lovelace architecture, released in the GeForce 40 generation. It uses a 5 nm process from TSMC. The die measures 609 mm² and contains 76,300 million transistors, yielding a density of 125.3 million per mm². The architecture includes 66 ray tracing cores and 264 tensor cores. These are dedicated hardware units for ray-traced lighting and AI-accelerated workloads. The shading units number 8448, with 264 texture mapping units and 96 raster output units. The card supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FP32 compute rate is 44.10 TFLOPS, and FP16 is also 44.10 TFLOPS at a 1:1 ratio.

The Quadro M500M is built on Maxwell architecture, from the Quadro Maxwell-M generation. It uses a 28 nm process from TSMC. The die is 77 mm² and contains 1,020 million transistors, with a density of 13.2 million per mm². There are no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores recorded. The shading units number 384, with 16 texture mapping units and 8 raster output units. The card supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FP32 compute rate is 863.2 GFLOPS. There is no recorded FP16 rate. The architecture lacks the dedicated AI and ray tracing hardware found in Ada Lovelace.

The transistor density gap is stark: 125.3 million per mm² versus 13.2 million per mm². That is a 9.5x difference, driven by the process node shrink from 28 nm to 5 nm. The RTX card also has a much larger die, 609 mm² versus 77 mm², which is nearly 8 times bigger. These two architectures are separated by two full generations of NVIDIA design philosophy. Maxwell focused on efficiency for mobile workstations, while Ada Lovelace pushes maximum performance and feature support for desktop enthusiasts.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 has a base clock of 2340 MHz and a boost clock of 2610 MHz. The Quadro M500M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The RTX card runs more than twice as fast at base and more than twice as fast at boost. Memory speed is 1313 MHz with 21 Gbps effective for the RTX card, versus 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective for the Quadro M500M.

Memory capacity is 16 GB of GDDR6X versus 2 GB of DDR3. Bus width is 256 bit versus 64 bit. Bandwidth is 672.3 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. The RTX card has 8448 shading units, 264 TMUs, and 96 ROPs. The Quadro M500M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 250.6 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 689.0 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. FP32 is 44.10 TFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS.

Power draw is 285 W for the RTX card, with a suggested PSU of 600 W and a 1x 16-pin power connector. The Quadro M500M draws 30 W and has no power connectors. Slot width is triple-slot for the RTX card, versus MXM Module for the Quadro. Bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x16 versus MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs are 1x HDMI 2.1 and 3x DisplayPort 1.4a for the RTX card, versus portable device dependent for the Quadro. Dimensions are 310 mm length, 140 mm height, 61 mm width for the RTX card; the Quadro has no recorded dimensions.

Release dates are also distinct: the RTX card launched on 2024-06-09, and the Quadro launched on 2016-04-26. The RTX card has a launch MSRP of 799 USD, which is stated once here as a factual data point. The Quadro has no recorded launch MSRP. The RTX card's predecessor is the GeForce 30 series, and its successor is the GeForce 50 series. The Quadro's predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M, and its successor is Quadro Pascal-M. Both are marked as end-of-life in production status.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear separation of use cases. The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is for desktop systems that need high-end rasterization, ray tracing, and compute performance. Its 44.10 TFLOPS FP32 rate, 66 ray tracing cores, and 264 tensor cores make it suitable for modern DirectX 12 Ultimate workloads. The Quadro M500M is a low-power mobile workstation part, drawing 30 W and using an MXM module form factor. Its 863.2 GFLOPS FP32 rate and 14.40 GB/s bandwidth reflect a design for basic 3D acceleration and portability, not heavy compute.

The average benchmark scores confirm the gap: 6270 versus 5604. But the RTX card's nearest rivals include the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER at a 0% delta, meaning the database places it in a performance tier that is very tight around 6270. The Quadro M500M's nearest rivals cluster around 5500 to 5700, with the largest delta at 1.9% from the GTX 765M. Neither card dominates its peer group by large margins; they sit within a few percentage points of their closest competitors.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the answer depends on the platform. If the system accepts a desktop PCIe 4.0 x16 card with a triple-slot cooler and a 600 W PSU, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is the only viable option. If the system requires an MXM-A module with no external power, the Quadro M500M is the only choice. There is no overlap in form factor, power envelope, or performance class.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 wins in every performance metric recorded. It has higher shading units, texture rate, pixel rate, memory bandwidth, and FP32 compute. It also has dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores, which the Quadro lacks entirely. The 66 ray tracing cores enable hardware-accelerated ray tracing, a feature absent from Maxwell. The 264 tensor cores support AI inference workloads, which the Quadro cannot accelerate. The 16 GB GDDR6X memory with 672.3 GB/s bandwidth is suited for large textures and datasets, while the Quadro's 2 GB DDR3 is limited to small workloads.

The Quadro M500M wins in power efficiency and form factor. Its 30 W TDP is a fraction of the RTX card's 285 W. The MXM module design allows installation in laptops and compact workstations, whereas the RTX card requires a full desktop chassis with triple-slot clearance and a 1x 16-pin connector. The Quadro has no power connector requirement, simplifying installation in constrained systems. Its 2016 release date also means it is a legacy part, potentially available for older proprietary systems.

The benchmark data shows the RTX card at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro sits at the 32nd percentile. The RTX card's average score is 6270, and its nearest rival is the RTX 5070 Ti SUPER at 6270, a 0% delta. The Quadro's average is 5604, and its nearest rival is the FirePro M4000 at 5537, a 1.2% delta. In aggregate, the RTX card is 11.9% faster, but that comparison is misleading because the two cards target different markets and form factors.

For gaming, rendering, and compute on a desktop, the RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 is the clear choice. For a low-power mobile workstation with minimal graphics demands, the Quadro M500M serves a narrow purpose. The data does not suggest any scenario where the Quadro outpaces the RTX card in raw performance. The only wins for the Quadro are in power draw, physical size, and compatibility with MXM-based systems. Those are practical wins, but they are not performance wins.