NVIDIA Quadro 4000M vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data available for the NVIDIA Quadro M500M and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is limited to a single shared test: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the Quadro M500M records a score of 5986, while the Quadro 4000M trails with 5211. The result is a decisive win for the Quadro M500M, with a 14.9% advantage. The field of comparison is narrow, but the direction of the outcome is unambiguous. The Quadro M500M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5222, which has no counterpart in the Quadro 4000M's data set. The Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan result listed, so its capabilities in that API remain unmeasured.

When looking at average benchmark scores, the Quadro M500M produces 5604 across its two tests, while the Quadro 4000M produces 5211 from its single test. This is a 7.5% gap in aggregate performance. The Quadro M500M also holds a higher percentile rank among all GPUs, sitting at the 32nd percentile versus the Quadro 4000M's 30th percentile. The data shows a consistent, if modest, performance advantage for the newer part across every metric where both have results.

The Quadro M500M's wins are not limited to raw compute throughput. Its architecture and clock behavior also favor it in specific workload patterns. The chip runs at a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz, while the Quadro 4000M has no base or boost clock figures listed. In compute tasks that scale with clock frequency, the M500M's higher operating rates contribute to its lead. The M500M also achieves a higher pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s compared to the Quadro 4000M's 6.650 GPixel/s, a 35% advantage in fill-rate-bound scenarios. Where texture work is concerned, the Quadro 4000M fights back with a 26.60 GTexel/s texture rate versus the M500M's 17.98 GTexel/s, a 48% edge for the older Fermi part.

Thus, the wins are split by workload type. The Quadro M500M wins in general compute, pixel throughput, and any task that benefits from newer architecture and higher clocks. The Quadro 4000M wins in pure texture-fetch throughput, thanks to its larger complement of texture mapping units (56 versus 16). The data does not include gaming or workstation-specific tests, so the practical impact of these differences must be inferred from the architectural and fill-rate numbers.

The Verdict

The verdict from the data is straightforward for most users: the Quadro M500M is the better performer in the shared benchmark, and it should be the default choice for anyone prioritizing compute performance. Its 14.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is significant, and its higher pixel rate reinforces its suitability for tasks that generate many fragments or pixels. The M500M also offers a Vulkan path, which the Quadro 4000M lacks entirely, making it more future-proof for applications that adopt newer graphics APIs.

However, the Quadro 4000M is not without a niche. Its 80.00 GB/s memory bandwidth dwarfs the M500M's 14.40 GB/s, a 5.6x difference. This comes from a 256-bit memory bus and GDDR5 memory, versus the M500M's 64-bit bus and DDR3. Any workload that is heavily bandwidth-bound—such as large texture streaming, certain image processing filters, or data movement within the GPU—would strongly favor the Quadro 4000M. Its texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s is also far higher, so applications that hammer textures will see better throughput on the older chip.

Pick the Quadro M500M for general compute, modern API support, and lower power consumption (30 W versus 100 W). Pick the Quadro 4000M only if your specific workloads are dominated by memory bandwidth or texture fetching, and if the higher power draw is acceptable. The percentile data supports the M500M's overall superiority: 32nd percentile versus 30th. The Quadro M500M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (1.9% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (1.7% ahead), placing it in a competitive mobile-class bracket. The Quadro 4000M sits near the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (1.4% ahead) and the Quadro K3100M (1.1% behind), a slightly lower tier. The data does not support choosing the Quadro 4000M for any task where the M500M has a measured result.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro M500M scores 5986, and the Quadro 4000M scores 5211. The delta is 14.9% in favor of the M500M. This is a large enough margin to be considered a clear generational improvement, not a marginal one. The M500M's architecture, Maxwell, executes compute workloads more efficiently than the Quadro 4000M's Fermi design, and the clock speed advantage (1029 MHz base versus no listed clock for the 4000M) contributes to the gap.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Quadro M500M's average score of 5604 places it 1.2% ahead of the AMD FirePro M4000 and 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130. The Quadro 4000M's average of 5211 puts it 1.0% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M. The gap between the two laptops' average scores (5604 versus 5211) is consistent with the head-to-head result, reinforcing that the M500M is the stronger chip.

The M500M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5222, which is lower than its OpenCL score but still above the Quadro 4000M's entire benchmark output. There is no Vulkan result for the Quadro 4000M, so a direct comparison is impossible. The absence of a Vulkan score for the 4000M is notable because its API list includes DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but omits Vulkan, while the M500M supports all three. In any modern compute or graphics workload that uses Vulkan, the Quadro 4000M is simply not a candidate.

Pixel rate is another clear win for the M500M: 8.992 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s, a 35% difference. This matters for tasks like anti-aliasing, post-processing, and high-resolution rendering. The M500M's 8 ROPs achieve this rate despite being fewer than the Quadro 4000M's 32 ROPs, which indicates a much higher clock-driven efficiency per ROP. The Quadro 4000M's higher ROP count (32 versus 8) does not translate into a pixel rate win, showing that the M500M's clock speed (1124 MHz boost) and architecture overcome the numerical deficit.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M scores 5986, which is 14.9% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M's 5211.

Q: Does the Quadro 4000M support the Vulkan API?

A: No. The Quadro 4000M's API list includes DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan. The Quadro M500M supports Vulkan 1.4 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5222.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 4000M has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth from a 256-bit GDDR5 interface. The Quadro M500M has 14.40 GB/s from a 64-bit DDR3 interface.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro M500M has a TDP of 30 W, while the Quadro 4000M has a TDP of 100 W. The M500M is the more power-efficient part.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro M500M achieves 8.992 GPixel/s, which is 35% higher than the Quadro 4000M's 6.650 GPixel/s, despite having only 8 ROPs versus the 4000M's 32 ROPs.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their closest rivals?

A: The Quadro M500M's average score of 5604 puts it 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M and 1.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130. The Quadro 4000M's average of 5211 places it 1.0% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras. The Quadro M500M uses the GM108S chip, built on the Maxwell architecture, while the Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip, built on the Fermi architecture. Both are fabricated by TSMC, but on different process nodes: the M500M uses 28 nm, and the 4000M uses 40 nm. The transistor counts reflect this: the M500M packs 1,020 million transistors onto a 77 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The Quadro 4000M contains 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die, with a density of 5.9 million per square millimeter. The M500M is a far denser design.

The chip generations also differ. The M500M belongs to the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation, while the 4000M belongs to the Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) generation. Their predecessors and successors reflect the timeline: the M500M's predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M, and its successor is the Quadro Pascal-M. The Quadro 4000M's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile, and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M. The release dates confirm the gap: the M500M arrived on April 26, 2016, while the 4000M came on February 21, 2011.

Both cards use the MXM module form factor, but with different bus interfaces: the M500M uses MXM-A (3.0), and the 4000M uses MXM-B (3.0). Neither has power connectors, and both have display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The API support shows a key difference: the M500M lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the 4000M lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but no Vulkan. The M500M also has a higher FP32 throughput at 863.2 GFLOPS versus the 4000M's 638.4 GFLOPS.

Specification Differences

The specifications where the two GPUs differ are numerous. The memory subsystem is the most dramatic divergence. The Quadro 4000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s. The Quadro M500M also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s. The memory clock differs as well: the M500M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the 4000M runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The 4000M's much wider bus is the source of its bandwidth advantage.

The compute unit counts differ significantly. The M500M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The M500M has fewer TMUs and ROPs but more shading units. The clock speeds are only listed for the M500M: base 1029 MHz, boost 1124 MHz. The 4000M has no base or boost clock listed. The M500M's pixel rate is 8.992 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 17.98 GTexel/s. The 4000M's pixel rate is 6.650 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 26.60 GTexel/s.

Power and physical characteristics differ as well. The M500M has a TDP of 30 W, while the 4000M has a TDP of 100 W. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors. The bus interfaces differ (MXM-A versus MXM-B). The production status is identical—both are end-of-life. The M500M has a higher percentile rank (32 versus 30) and a higher average benchmark score (5604 versus 5211). The M500M also has two benchmark results (OpenCL and Vulkan), while the 4000M has only one (OpenCL). The die size difference is stark: 77 mm² for the M500M versus 332 mm² for the 4000M. The FP32 performance is higher on the M500M (863.2 GFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS), despite the 4000M's larger die and higher transistor count.