NVIDIA Quadro 4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database places the NVIDIA Quadro M500M and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 in different eras, and the recorded data shows a clear winner. The Quadro M500M leads the Quadro 4000 in the only shared benchmark test, Geekbench OpenCL, by a margin of 20.2%. The M500M scores 5986 against the Quadro 4000's 4979. The M500M also holds a higher overall percentile rank, sitting at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000 sits at the 29th percentile.

The verdict is straightforward for modern workloads: the Quadro M500M is the superior choice. It is faster, more power-efficient, and built on a newer architecture. The Quadro 4000 retains relevance only for legacy systems that require its specific interface and display outputs. The data shows the M500M wins the only head-to-head benchmark, and its average benchmark score of 5604 exceeds the Quadro 4000's 4979 by a substantial amount.

For users with a chassis that accepts an MXM module, the M500M is the clear pick. For those maintaining a workstation with a PCIe 2.0 x16 slot and needing DVI or DisplayPort outputs, the Quadro 4000 remains a functional, if dated, option. The M500M offers better performance per watt and superior compute results. The Quadro 4000's launch MSRP was 1,199 USD, but that figure does not alter its current benchmark standing.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M500M wins in compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5986 is 20.2% higher than the Quadro 4000's 4979. This advantage comes from higher clock speeds and a more efficient architecture. The M500M also supports Vulkan 1.4, a feature entirely absent from the Quadro 4000's feature set. This makes the M500M suitable for modern applications that leverage Vulkan for graphics or compute.

The Quadro 4000 has no benchmark wins in the database. Its only recorded score, Geekbench OpenCL at 4979, is lower than the M500M's corresponding score. Where the Quadro 4000 does differentiate itself is in memory bandwidth and display outputs. It offers 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth, which is over six times the M500M's 14.40 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage does not translate into a compute win in the recorded data, but it could matter for specific legacy workloads that are bandwidth-bound.

The Quadro 4000 also provides physical display outputs (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort), while the M500M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent". For a desktop workstation with a fixed monitor setup, the Quadro 4000's direct outputs are a practical advantage. The M500M's mobile-oriented design requires a carrier board to provide display connectivity.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The Quadro M500M uses the Maxwell architecture on a 28 nm process node, while the Quadro 4000 uses the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm node. Both are fabricated by TSMC, but the process difference is significant. The M500M's chip, the GM108S, contains 1,020 million transistors on a die size of 77 mm². The Quadro 4000's GF100 chip contains 3,100 million transistors on a much larger 529 mm² die. This results in a transistor density of 13.2M per mm² for the M500M versus 5.9M per mm² for the Quadro 4000.

The M500M has 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The M500M compensates for fewer TMUs and ROPs with higher clock speeds. Its base clock is 1029 MHz with a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The Quadro 4000 has no recorded base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 702 MHz. The M500M's pixel rate is 8.992 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 17.98 GTexel/s. The Quadro 4000's pixel rate is 7.600 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 15.20 GTexel/s. The M500M leads in all these rate metrics despite having fewer ROPs.

The memory subsystems differ sharply. The M500M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 4000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 89.86 GB/s. The M500M's memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the Quadro 4000's memory clock is 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The Quadro 4000's wider bus gives it a massive bandwidth advantage, but the M500M's faster compute clocks and newer architecture win the benchmark.

The power profiles are vastly different. The M500M has a TDP of 30 W and requires no power connectors. The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W and requires one 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W. The M500M's slot width is "MXM Module", while the Quadro 4000 is a single-slot card measuring 241 mm in length, 111 mm in height, and 20 mm in width.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M. It scores 5986 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 20.2% higher than the Quadro 4000's score of 4979.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: No. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but the M500M also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 4000 has significantly more bandwidth at 89.86 GB/s, compared to the M500M's 14.40 GB/s. The Quadro 4000 uses GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the M500M uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The M500M has a TDP of 30 W and needs no power connectors. The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W and requires one 6-pin connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Which GPU is more suitable for a modern desktop workstation?

A: The Quadro M500M is better for compute performance and modern API support. However, the Quadro 4000 offers direct display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort) and a standard PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, which may be necessary for older desktop systems.

Q: How do their overall benchmark scores compare?

A: The M500M has an average benchmark score of 5604, placing it in the 32nd percentile. The Quadro 4000's average score is 4979, placing it in the 29th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the Quadro M500M wins decisively. The M500M scores 5986, while the Quadro 4000 scores 4979. The delta is 20.2% in favor of the M500M. This is a substantial margin that reflects the architectural advantages of the newer Maxwell design over the older Fermi design.

The M500M's score of 5986 places it 1.2% above the AMD FirePro M4000's average score of 5537, and 1.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce MX130's 5508. It sits 1.9% above the GeForce GTX 765M's 5501. The M500M's only negative delta among its nearest rivals is against the AMD Radeon HD 8790M, which scores 5691, putting the M500M 1.5% behind. These comparisons show the M500M is competitive within its performance class.

The Quadro 4000's score of 4979 places it 0.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB's average score of 4970. It is 1.0% above the AMD Radeon R7 M360's 4931. The Quadro 4000 trails the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics by 0.4% (that chip scores 4998) and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 by 0.8% (that chip scores 5018). The Quadro 4000's nearest rivals are all within a 1% band, indicating its performance is tightly clustered with low-end integrated and discrete GPUs from later generations.

The 20.2% delta between the M500M and the Quadro 4000 is larger than any delta between either GPU and its nearest rivals. This indicates the two cards are not direct competitors in the same performance tier. The M500M is a clear step above the Quadro 4000 in compute capability. The Quadro 4000's high memory bandwidth does not rescue it in this test, as the M500M's faster shading units and higher clocks dominate.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The process nodes are different: the M500M uses 28 nm, the Quadro 4000 uses 40 nm. The transistor counts differ by a factor of three: 1,020 million for the M500M versus 3,100 million for the Quadro 4000. The die sizes are 77 mm² and 529 mm² respectively. The transistor densities are 13.2M per mm² for the M500M and 5.9M per mm² for the Quadro 4000.

The shading unit counts are 384 for the M500M and 256 for the Quadro 4000. The TMU counts are 16 versus 32, and the ROP counts are 8 versus 32. The M500M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz; the Quadro 4000 has no base or boost clocks listed. The memory configurations are 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus for the M500M, versus 2 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for the Quadro 4000. Memory bandwidth is 14.40 GB/s for the M500M and 89.86 GB/s for the Quadro 4000.

The pixel rates are 8.992 GPixel/s for the M500M and 7.600 GPixel/s for the Quadro 4000. The texture rates are 17.98 GTexel/s and 15.20 GTexel/s respectively. The FP32 compute is 863.2 GFLOPS for the M500M and 486.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 4000. This nearly doubles the compute throughput of the Quadro 4000.

Power consumption differs drastically: the M500M is rated at 30 W TDP, the Quadro 4000 at 142 W TDP. The M500M uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and has no power connectors, while the Quadro 4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and requires a 6-pin connector with a 300 W suggested PSU. The M500M's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent", while the Quadro 4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The Quadro 4000 has physical dimensions of 241 mm length, 111 mm height, and 20 mm width; the M500M has no listed dimensions. The API support differs in Vulkan: the M500M supports version 1.4, the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support.