NVIDIA GeForce 940MX vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M and NVIDIA GeForce 940MX are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, but they target different segments of the laptop market. The database records show that the Quadro M500M, a professional workstation part, holds a clear performance advantage over the consumer-oriented GeForce 940MX in the available benchmark tests. This analysis compares the two based on recorded measurements, architectural specifications, and nearest-rival data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains two specific tests: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the Quadro M500M emerges as the winner. The results are unambiguous.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M500M scores 5986, while the GeForce 940MX scores 4939. This represents a 21.2% advantage for the Quadro M500M. That is a substantial gap in raw compute performance, and it places the Quadro M500M in a different performance tier for general-purpose GPU workloads.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a narrower but still decisive lead. The Quadro M500M scores 5222, and the GeForce 940MX scores 4749. The delta is 10%, meaning the Quadro M500M outperforms the GeForce 940MX by exactly that margin in this API-bound workload. While the Vulkan gap is smaller than the OpenCL gap, it still confirms that the Quadro M500M is the faster part across both recorded benchmarks.

Looking at the average benchmark score, which the database derives from these tests, the Quadro M500M averages 5604, while the GeForce 940MX averages 4844. The difference is roughly 760 points, or about 15.7% in favor of the Quadro M500M. This average score serves as a single summary metric for overall performance, and it reinforces the head-to-head results.

The percentile rankings also tell a consistent story. The Quadro M500M sits at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the GeForce 940MX sits at the 28th percentile. This means the Quadro M500M outperforms a slightly larger share of the GPU population than the GeForce 940MX does.

When placed against their nearest rivals, the two cards occupy different competitive neighborhoods. The Quadro M500M’s nearest rival, the AMD FirePro M4000, has an average score of 5537, which is 1.2% lower than the Quadro M500M’s 5604. Another rival, the AMD Radeon HD 8790M, scores 5691, which is 1.5% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 5508, 1.7% lower, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M scores 5501, 1.9% lower. The Quadro M500M thus sits in a tight cluster where it edges out most of its immediate competitors but slightly trails the Radeon HD 8790M.

The GeForce 940MX, by contrast, has a different set of nearest rivals. Its closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M, scores 4855, which is 0.2% higher than the 940MX’s 4844. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX scores 4867, 0.5% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893, 1% higher. Interestingly, the database lists the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB as a nearest rival with an average score of 4791, which is 1.1% lower than the 940MX. The GeForce 940MX is therefore a mid-to-low performer, closely matched with older desktop parts and entry-level mobile GPUs.

The head-to-head wins tally is 2 for the Quadro M500M and 0 for the GeForce 940MX. No recorded test favors the GeForce 940MX.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, and both use NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture. The similarities end there, as the chip designs diverge significantly.

The Quadro M500M uses the GM108S chip, which contains 1,020 million transistors on a die size of 77 mm². The transistor density is 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The GeForce 940MX uses the GM107 chip, which is a larger and more complex die. It contains 1,870 million transistors on a die size of 148 mm², with a transistor density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The GeForce 940MX’s chip has roughly 83% more transistors and a die that is about 92% larger, yet its transistor density is slightly lower. This suggests the GM107 has a different balance of logic and memory structures.

The memory subsystems are a major point of differentiation. The Quadro M500M is equipped with 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus. Its memory clock is 900 MHz, which yields an effective data rate of 1800 Mbps, and the resulting bandwidth is 14.40 GB/s. The GeForce 940MX also has 2 GB of memory and a 64-bit bus, but it uses GDDR5 memory. Its memory clock is 1253 MHz, producing an effective data rate of 5 Gbps, and the bandwidth is 40.10 GB/s. The GeForce 940MX therefore offers nearly 2.8 times the memory bandwidth of the Quadro M500M. This is a critical architectural difference because bandwidth often limits texture-heavy and large-data workloads.

The compute resources also differ. The Quadro M500M has 384 shading units, 16 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The GeForce 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The GeForce 940MX offers 33% more shading units and double the texture units, which should theoretically give it an advantage in pixel-pushing and texture-filtering tasks.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Quadro M500M runs at a base clock of 1029 MHz and a boost clock of 1124 MHz. The GeForce 940MX runs at a base clock of 795 MHz and a boost clock of 861 MHz. The Quadro M500M’s clocks are significantly higher, with a boost clock about 30% above the GeForce 940MX’s. This higher clock speed compensates for the lower shader count in many workloads.

The resulting throughput numbers are close. The Quadro M500M delivers a pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 17.98 GTexel/s. Its FP32 compute is 863.2 GFLOPS. The GeForce 940MX delivers a pixel rate of 6.888 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 27.55 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute of 881.7 GFLOPS. The GeForce 940MX has a higher texture rate and slightly higher FP32, but the Quadro M500M has a higher pixel rate. In raw floating-point throughput, the two are nearly tied, with the GeForce 940MX leading by about 2%.

Power consumption differs as well. The Quadro M500M has a TDP of 30 W, while the GeForce 940MX has a TDP of 23 W. The GeForce 940MX is the more power-efficient part on paper, delivering comparable FP32 compute at lower power. Both use an MXM module slot and require no additional power connectors.

The bus interface also differs. The Quadro M500M uses MXM-A (3.0), while the GeForce 940MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8. This is a notable distinction for system integration, as the MXM-A interface is a dedicated mobile module standard, whereas PCIe 3.0 x8 is a more general-purpose connection.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Neither has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Display outputs are listed as portable device dependent for both, meaning they rely on the laptop’s integrated panel and external ports.

The release dates are close. The Quadro M500M launched on April 26, 2016, and the GeForce 940MX launched on June 27, 2016. The Quadro M500M’s predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M, and its successor is the Quadro Pascal-M. The GeForce 940MX’s predecessor is the GeForce 800M, and its successor is the GeForce 10 Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M500M has an average benchmark score of 5604, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has an average score of 4844. The Quadro M500M leads by about 15.7%.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The GeForce 940MX has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 40.10 GB/s, using GDDR5 memory. The Quadro M500M has 14.40 GB/s, using DDR3 memory. The GeForce 940MX offers roughly 2.8 times more bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GeForce 940MX has 512 shading units, while the Quadro M500M has 384 shading units. This is a 33% advantage for the GeForce 940MX in shader count.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Quadro M500M has a TDP of 30 W, and the GeForce 940MX has a TDP of 23 W. The GeForce 940MX consumes less power.

Q: Which GPU scores higher in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The Quadro M500M scores 5222, and the GeForce 940MX scores 4749. The Quadro M500M wins by 10%.

Q: Are both GPUs built on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. However, they use different chips: the Quadro M500M uses GM108S, and the GeForce 940MX uses GM107.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs:

• Chip: Quadro M500M uses GM108S; GeForce 940MX uses GM107.
• Generation: Quadro M500M is in the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation; GeForce 940MX is in the GeForce 900M generation.
• Transistors: Quadro M500M has 1,020 million; GeForce 940MX has 1,870 million.
• Die Size: Quadro M500M is 77 mm²; GeForce 940MX is 148 mm².
• Transistor Density: Quadro M500M is 13.2M / mm²; GeForce 940MX is 12.6M / mm².
• Base Clock: Quadro M500M is 1029 MHz; GeForce 940MX is 795 MHz.
• Boost Clock: Quadro M500M is 1124 MHz; GeForce 940MX is 861 MHz.
• Memory Clock: Quadro M500M is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective); GeForce 940MX is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).
• Memory Type: Quadro M500M uses DDR3; GeForce 940MX uses GDDR5.
• Bandwidth: Quadro M500M is 14.40 GB/s; GeForce 940MX is 40.10 GB/s.
• Shading Units: Quadro M500M has 384; GeForce 940MX has 512.
• TMUs: Quadro M500M has 16; GeForce 940MX has 32.
• Pixel Rate: Quadro M500M is 8.992 GPixel/s; GeForce 940MX is 6.888 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: Quadro M500M is 17.98 GTexel/s; GeForce 940MX is 27.55 GTexel/s.
• FP32: Quadro M500M is 863.2 GFLOPS; GeForce 940MX is 881.7 GFLOPS.
• TDP: Quadro M500M is 30 W; GeForce 940MX is 23 W.
• Bus Interface: Quadro M500M uses MXM-A (3.0); GeForce 940MX uses PCIe 3.0 x8.
• Release Date: Quadro M500M launched on 2016-04-26; GeForce 940MX launched on 2016-06-27.
• Predecessor: Quadro M500M’s predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M; GeForce 940MX’s predecessor is GeForce 800M.
• Successor: Quadro M500M’s successor is Quadro Pascal-M; GeForce 940MX’s successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.
• Benchmarks: Quadro M500M scores 5986 (OpenCL) and 5222 (Vulkan); GeForce 940MX scores 4939 (OpenCL) and 4749 (Vulkan).
• Average Benchmark Score: Quadro M500M is 5604; GeForce 940MX is 4844.
• Percentile: Quadro M500M is at the 32nd percentile; GeForce 940MX is at the 28th percentile.
• Nearest Rivals: The two GPUs have entirely different sets of nearest rivals.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M500M wins in all recorded benchmark tests. It takes the Geekbench OpenCL test with a 21.2% lead and the Geekbench Vulkan test with a 10% lead. Its higher clock speeds, at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost, contribute to its superior pixel rate of 8.992 GPixel/s. It also has a higher average benchmark score and a higher percentile ranking. The Quadro M500M is the better choice for compute-oriented workloads as measured by these tests, particularly those that rely on OpenCL.

The GeForce 940MX, despite losing every benchmark, has notable strengths in specific areas. Its memory bandwidth is far higher at 40.10 GB/s, which is an advantage for texture-heavy applications and large data sets. It has more shading units (512 versus 384) and double the texture units (32 versus 16), leading to a higher texture rate of 27.55 GTexel/s. Its FP32 compute of 881.7 GFLOPS is slightly higher than the Quadro M500M’s 863.2 GFLOPS. The GeForce 940MX also consumes less power, with a TDP of 23 W versus 30 W. These characteristics make it a more efficient part for tasks that are bound by memory bandwidth or texture throughput, even though the recorded benchmark scores do not reflect a win.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner: the NVIDIA Quadro M500M. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score (5604 versus 4844), and a higher percentile ranking (32nd versus 28th). For any user relying on the recorded OpenCL or Vulkan performance, the Quadro M500M is the superior GPU.

However, the GeForce 940MX is not without merit. Its GDDR5 memory provides nearly triple the bandwidth, and its larger shader and texture unit counts give it a different performance profile. In tasks that are not captured by these two benchmarks, such as pure texture filtering or memory-intensive operations, the GeForce 940MX may perform relatively better. Its lower TDP also makes it a more power-conscious option for thin laptops.

The choice comes down to workload priorities. If the goal is maximum compute performance in OpenCL and Vulkan, as measured by the database, the Quadro M500M is the pick. If the goal is memory bandwidth and texture throughput with lower power consumption, the GeForce 940MX has the architectural edge, despite its benchmark deficit. For professional or workstation use, the Quadro M500M’s benchmark dominance makes it the safer recommendation. For general consumer use where power efficiency and memory bandwidth matter, the GeForce 940MX remains a viable alternative, but the recorded data favors the Quadro M500M in every direct comparison.