GPU Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data contains two shared tests between the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the K4000 emerges as the clear victor, though the margin varies considerably by workload type.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K4000 scores 6816 against the M500M’s 5986. This represents a 13.9% advantage for the older workstation card. While a double-digit lead is meaningful, it is not a rout; the M500M manages to stay within striking distance in this compute-oriented test. The K4000’s larger memory bus and higher bandwidth likely contribute to this edge, but the M500M’s Maxwell architecture appears to extract respectable efficiency from its smaller configuration.

The gap widens dramatically in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the K4000 scores 6964, while the M500M manages only 5222. This translates to a 33.4% advantage for the K4000, a substantial margin that underscores the K4000’s superiority in modern graphics API workloads. Vulkan’s lower-level access to hardware tends to reward raw compute and memory resources, and the K4000’s specifications align far better with those demands. The M500M’s 64-bit memory interface and DDR3 memory become a significant bottleneck in this scenario.

Across the two shared benchmarks, the K4000 wins both, giving it a 2-0 record in head-to-head comparisons. The weighted average benchmark score reinforces this: the K4000 sits at 5982, while the M500M trails at 5604. This difference of 378 points places the K4000 roughly 6.7% higher on average, though the Vulkan test shows a much larger spread than the OpenCL test.

When placed against their respective peer groups, the results are contextualized further. The K4000’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, which scores 5986 and sits just 0.1% ahead. The AMD FirePro W4100 also scores 5987, again 0.1% ahead. Meanwhile, the AMD Radeon HD 8750M trails by 0.2%, and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server leads by 0.2%. These razor-thin margins indicate the K4000 is precisely in the middle of its immediate competitive cluster.

The M500M’s nearest rivals tell a different story. The AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537, which is 1.2% behind the M500M. The AMD Radeon HD 8790M scores 5691, putting it 1.5% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 trails by 1.7%, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is 1.9% behind. The M500M thus occupies a slightly weaker position within its own peer group, with more rivals ahead of it than behind.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the superior performer. It wins both shared benchmarks, holds a higher average benchmark score (5982 vs. 5604), and carries a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs (34th vs. 32nd). For any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan, the K4000 delivers more compute throughput, with the Vulkan advantage being particularly pronounced at 33.4%.

The K4000 is the choice for users who prioritize raw performance in modern graphics APIs. Its 3 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus provides 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the M500M’s 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus yielding just 14.40 GB/s. This nine-fold bandwidth difference is the single largest specification gap between the two, and it manifests directly in the Vulkan benchmark results.

However, the M500M is not without its merits. Its 30 W TDP is less than half the K4000’s 80 W, and it requires no external power connectors, the K4000 needs a 6-pin connector. The M500M is also an MXM module, indicating it is designed for portable or mobile workstation deployments where power efficiency and form factor matter more than peak performance. Its 1029 MHz base clock and 1124 MHz boost clock are higher than the K4000’s unspecified base and boost clocks, suggesting better per-clock efficiency from the Maxwell architecture.

For users constrained by power budgets or mobile chassis requirements, the M500M is the only viable option. But for desktop workstations where performance is the priority, the K4000 wins decisively. The data does not support choosing the M500M for compute-heavy tasks on a desktop platform. The K4000’s 2-0 record in head-to-head benchmarks, combined with its higher average score and percentile ranking, makes it the clear recommendation for performance-oriented workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent different generations of NVIDIA’s GPU architecture. The K4000 is built on Kepler, using the GK106 chip, while the M500M uses Maxwell, built on the GM108S chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ substantially: the K4000 packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the M500M contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. This results in a higher transistor density for the M500M at 13.2M per mm², versus 11.5M per mm² for the K4000.

The K4000 belongs to the Quadro Kepler generation, specifically the Kx000 series, while the M500M is part of the Quadro Maxwell-M generation, in the Mx000M series. The K4000’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi, and its successor is Quadro Maxwell. The M500M’s predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M, and its successor is Quadro Pascal-M. This places the two cards on opposite sides of a generational shift, with the K4000 representing the older Kepler architecture and the M500M embodying the newer Maxwell design.

Architecturally, the K4000 features 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The M500M is much leaner, with 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Neither card includes ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies. The pixel rate for the K4000 is 12.96 GPixel/s, while the M500M achieves 8.992 GPixel/s. The texture rate similarly favors the K4000 at 51.84 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s for the M500M. FP32 compute is 1,244.2 GFLOPS for the K4000 and 863.2 GFLOPS for the M500M. Neither card lists FP16 support.

The memory architecture divergence is stark. The K4000 uses GDDR5 memory with 3 GB capacity on a 192-bit bus, achieving 134.8 GB/s bandwidth. The M500M uses DDR3 memory with 2 GB capacity on a 64-bit bus, achieving only 14.40 GB/s. This 9.4x bandwidth difference is the most consequential architectural gap between the two.

API support shows some variation. Both support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. However, the K4000 lists Vulkan 1.2.175, while the M500M lists Vulkan 1.4. The M500M’s newer architecture provides a more recent Vulkan implementation, though the K4000 still outperforms it in the Vulkan benchmark test.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The K4000 has a memory clock of 1404 MHz with 5.6 Gbps effective transfer rate, while the M500M runs at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective. The K4000’s memory size is 3 GB of GDDR5, while the M500M has 2 GB of DDR3. The bus width is 192 bits for the K4000 versus 64 bits for the M500M, and the bandwidth is 134.8 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s.

Shading units number 768 for the K4000 and 384 for the M500M, exactly half. TMUs are 64 versus 16, and ROPs are 24 versus 8. The K4000’s pixel rate is 12.96 GPixel/s, while the M500M’s is 8.992 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 51.84 GTexel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s, respectively. FP32 throughput is 1,244.2 GFLOPS for the K4000 and 863.2 GFLOPS for the M500M.

Power consumption differs by 50 W: the K4000 draws 80 W, while the M500M draws only 30 W. The K4000 is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector and a suggested 250 W PSU. The M500M is an MXM module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 for the K4000, while the M500M uses MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 for the K4000, while the M500M’s outputs are portable device dependent.

Physical dimensions are available only for the K4000: 241 mm in length (9.5 inches) and 111 mm in height (4.4 inches). The M500M has no listed dimensions. The K4000 has a launch MSRP of 1,269 USD; the M500M has no listed launch MSRP. The K4000 was released on 2013-02-28, while the M500M was released on 2016-04-26. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins with a score of 6816 against the M500M’s 5986, a 13.9% advantage.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The K4000 scores 6964 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the M500M scores 5222, giving the K4000 a 33.4% lead.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The K4000 has an average benchmark score of 5982, while the M500M averages 5604, a difference of 378 points in favor of the K4000.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The K4000 has 134.8 GB/s bandwidth from 3 GB GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, while the M500M has 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which card has lower power consumption?

A: The M500M draws 30 W, while the K4000 draws 80 W. The M500M also requires no power connectors, while the K4000 needs a 1x 6-pin connector.

Q: What are the respective percentile rankings?

A: The K4000 ranks in the 34th percentile among all GPUs, while the M500M ranks in the 32nd percentile.