NVIDIA Quadro M5000M vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M decisively above the NVIDIA Quadro M500M in every shared benchmark test. The M5000M wins both head-to-head tests; the M500M records zero wins. The average benchmark score for the M5000M is 6481, while the M500M sits at 5604, a gap of roughly 15.6% in the aggregate. The M5000M also holds a higher percentile ranking at 37 versus 32, meaning it sits above a larger share of all GPUs in the database.

For users who need maximum compute throughput in a mobile workstation, the M5000M is the clear choice based on the data. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22920 against 5986 for the M500M represents a lead of 282.9%. Its Vulkan score of 24875 against 5222 is a 376.4% advantage. These results indicate the M5000M delivers roughly four times the graphics workload capability in one API test and nearly four times in the other.

The M500M, by contrast, is positioned for lighter duties. Its nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M4000 (1.2% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (1.7% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (1.9% behind). This places it in a much lower performance tier. The M5000M's nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (0.1% ahead) and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 (1.1% behind), show it competing at a substantially higher level. The data suggests the M500M suits scenarios where the workload is modest and power draw is a primary constraint, while the M5000M is for compute-heavy tasks where performance is the priority.

Where Each One Wins

The M5000M wins all recorded benchmarks. Its wins are not marginal; they are dominant across the board. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M5000M's score of 22920 dwarfs the M500M's 5986. In Geekbench Vulkan, the M5000M records 24875 against the M500M's 5222. There is no benchmark in the database where the M500M comes out ahead.

The use-case split is therefore stark. The M5000M is the choice for tasks that stress compute throughput, such as rendering, simulation, or any workload using OpenCL or Vulkan acceleration. Its texture rate is 100.9 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s for the M500M, and its pixel rate is 67.26 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s. These raw throughput figures indicate the M5000M handles geometry and pixel fill at a much higher rate.

The M500M has its own niche. Its TDP is 30 W, compared to 100 W for the M5000M. For a portable device where battery life and thermal headroom are critical, the M500M draws far less power. The data shows it uses less than a third of the M5000M's power budget. It also has a smaller die (77 mm² versus 398 mm²) and fewer transistors (1,020 million versus 5,200 million), which aligns with lower power consumption. The M500M is therefore suited to basic graphics acceleration, office productivity, or light CAD viewing where the higher performance of the M5000M is unnecessary and the power draw would be wasteful.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs use a 28 nm process node from TSMC. The transistor density is nearly identical: 13.1M per mm² for the M5000M and 13.2M per mm² for the M500M. However, the chip designs diverge significantly. The M5000M uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The M500M uses the GM108S chip with the base Maxwell architecture, not the 2.0 revision.

The M5000M packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The M500M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. This is a difference of over 5x in transistor count and roughly 5.2x in die area. The M5000M's larger chip allows for 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The M500M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The M5000M has exactly four times the shading units and six times the TMUs, plus eight times the ROPs.

Memory architecture also differs. The M5000M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The M500M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s. The M5000M's memory bandwidth is over 11 times higher. The M5000M's memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the M500M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The M5000M also supports DirectX 12 at feature level 12_1, whereas the M500M supports DirectX 12 at feature level 11_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

The bus interface differs as well: the M5000M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the M500M uses MXM-A (3.0). Both are MXM modules and have no power connectors, as they rely on the socket. The M5000M has a base clock of 962 MHz and boost of 1051 MHz. The M500M runs slightly higher clocks: 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. Despite the higher clock, the M500M's far fewer cores result in much lower overall throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M has an average benchmark score of 6481, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M scores 5604. The M5000M is roughly 15.6% higher.

Q: How large is the gap in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The M5000M scores 24875 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the M500M scores 5222. This gives the M5000M a lead of 376.4%.

Q: Does the M500M have a lower power draw?

A: Yes. The M500M has a TDP of 30 W, while the M5000M has a TDP of 100 W. The M500M draws 70 W less.

Q: What memory type does each GPU use?

A: The M5000M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus. The M500M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The M5000M has a pixel rate of 67.26 GPixel/s, while the M500M has a pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s. The M5000M is approximately 7.5 times faster in this metric.

Q: Are both GPUs from the same generation?

A: Yes, both are listed under the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. However, the M5000M uses Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the M500M uses the original Maxwell architecture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head benchmark tests. The M5000M wins both, and by significant margins. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M5000M scores 22920 versus the M500M's 5986. The delta is 282.9%, meaning the M5000M delivers nearly four times the OpenCL performance. This is the smaller of the two gaps.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the difference is even more pronounced. The M5000M scores 24875, while the M500M scores 5222. The delta is 376.4%, meaning the M5000M is nearly five times faster in this API. This suggests the M5000M's larger core count and higher memory bandwidth benefit Vulkan workloads substantially. The M500M's lower feature level for DirectX 12 (11_0 versus 12_1) may also contribute to the performance disparity in modern APIs.

The wins are not confined to compute APIs. Looking at the broader benchmark set for the M5000M, it records scores for Passmark tests that the M500M does not have in the database. The M5000M scores 7062 in Passmark G3D, 2756 in GPU Compute, and 476 in G2D. These figures, while not directly comparable to the M500M due to missing data, reinforce the M5000M's position as the stronger part. The M500M's absence from these tests leaves its performance in DirectX workloads unrecorded, but its average score of 5604 versus the M5000M's 6481 indicates a clear overall gap.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification field. The chip is different: GM204 for the M5000M, GM108S for the M500M. The architecture is Maxwell 2.0 for the M5000M, plain Maxwell for the M500M. The process node is the same at 28 nm, but the die size differs drastically: 398 mm² versus 77 mm². Transistor count is 5,200 million versus 1,020 million, while density is nearly identical at 13.1M and 13.2M per mm².

Clock speeds differ in favor of the M500M for base and boost: 1029 MHz and 1124 MHz versus 962 MHz and 1051 MHz. However, the memory clock is higher on the M5000M at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Memory configuration is a major split: 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for the M5000M versus 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus for the M500M. Bandwidth is 160.4 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s.

Core counts are heavily skewed toward the M5000M. It has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The M500M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 67.26 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 100.9 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 3.229 TFLOPS for the M5000M versus 863.2 GFLOPS for the M500M. Neither GPU has RT cores or tensor cores.

Power consumption differs by 70 W: 100 W for the M5000M, 30 W for the M500M. The bus interface is MXM-B (3.0) for the M5000M and MXM-A (3.0) for the M500M. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) for the M5000M and 12 (11_0) for the M500M. OpenGL and Vulkan support are identical at 4.6 and 1.4 respectively. Both are end-of-life products, with the M5000M released in August 2015 and the M500M in April 2016. Both share the same predecessor (Quadro Kepler-M) and successor (Quadro Pascal-M).