NVIDIA Quadro M4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents a stark contrast between two professional mobile/workstation graphics solutions that share a family name but little else. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the decisive winner in every head-to-head benchmark recorded, dominating the NVIDIA Quadro M500M by margins that suggest a fundamentally different performance class. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the M4000 scores 19,118 against the M500M’s 5,986, a difference of 68.7% in favor of the larger card. The Vulkan gap is even more pronounced: 24,640 versus 5,222, a 78.8% deficit for the M500M.

These are not close results. The M500M’s average benchmark score of 5,604 places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the M4000’s average of 5,467 sits in the exact same 32nd percentile — a curious statistical coincidence that masks the true performance disparity. The M4000’s average is dragged down by its broader benchmark suite, which includes several PassMark tests where scores are low (33 in DirectX 10, 26 in DirectX 12), but its compute-oriented workloads tell a different story. The M500M, by contrast, only has two recorded benchmarks, both of which show it trailing badly.

Who should pick which? The data is unambiguous: any workload requiring substantial compute throughput, high-bandwidth memory access, or modern DirectX 12 feature support demands the M4000. The M500M appears suited only for lightweight mobile tasks where power draw must stay minimal and the workload does not stress GPU compute. The M4000’s 8 GB of GDDR5 memory versus the M500M’s 2 GB of DDR3 is a decisive factor for large datasets. The M500M’s 30 W TDP suggests a low-power mobile niche, while the M4000’s 120 W TDP and single-slot design indicate a desktop or high-performance workstation role. The benchmark scores, however, show no scenario in the recorded data where the M500M wins.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different branches of NVIDIA’s Maxwell family. The M500M uses the GM108S chip, built on the original Maxwell architecture at 28 nm by TSMC. The M4000 uses the GM204 chip, built on Maxwell 2.0, also at 28 nm by TSMC. Both share the same process node and foundry, but the silicon is radically different in scale. The M4000’s GM204 packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the M500M’s GM108S contains just 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical — 13.2M/mm² for the M500M versus 13.1M/mm² for the M4000 — confirming that the performance gap comes from raw silicon size, not process efficiency.

The core configurations differ enormously. The M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The M500M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 4.3x difference in shading units, a 6.5x difference in TMUs, and an 8x difference in ROPs. The M4000 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the M500M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) — a feature-level gap that affects advanced rendering techniques. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Memory architecture is another fundamental divide. The M500M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The M4000 uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s — more than 13 times the memory bandwidth. This is not a marginal difference; it is the difference between a card that can stream large textures and one that will bottleneck immediately on high-resolution assets. The M500M’s memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the M4000’s is 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The M4000’s display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the M500M’s are “Portable Device Dependent,” reflecting its mobile MXM module form factor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The M500M has a slightly higher average benchmark score at 5,604, versus the M4000’s 5,467. However, this is misleading because the M4000’s average includes multiple PassMark tests with low scores (33 in DirectX 10, 26 in DirectX 12), while the M500M only has two Geekbench scores. In the head-to-head Geekbench tests, the M4000 wins by 68.7% in OpenCL and 78.8% in Vulkan.

Q: Is the M4000 better for DirectX 12 workloads?

A: Yes. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the M500M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The M4000’s PassMark DirectX 12 score is 26, but this low number reflects a different test methodology; the feature-level support is what matters for compatibility with modern rendering pipelines.

Q: How large is the memory bandwidth gap?

A: The M4000 has 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth from its 256-bit GDDR5 interface, while the M500M has 14.40 GB/s from a 64-bit DDR3 interface. That is a 13.4x difference, which directly impacts texture streaming, compute workloads, and high-resolution rendering.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same process node?

A: Yes, both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The M500M’s GM108S die is 77 mm², while the M4000’s GM204 die is 398 mm². Transistor density is nearly identical at 13.2M/mm² versus 13.1M/mm².

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The M4000 has 1,664 shading units, compared to the M500M’s 384. This 4.3x difference is the primary driver of the compute performance gap seen in the Geekbench OpenCL results.

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: The M500M is an MXM Module (MXM-A 3.0 interface) with no power connectors and a 30 W TDP, designed for portable devices. The M4000 is a single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector, a 300 W suggested PSU, and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, measuring 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every measurable specification. The M4000 uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the M500M uses the GM108S with original Maxwell. Transistor count is 5,200 million versus 1,020 million; die size is 398 mm² versus 77 mm². The M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the M500M has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 49.47 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s; texture rate is 80.39 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s; FP32 compute is 2.573 TFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS.

Memory differs completely: 8 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth versus 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s. The M4000’s memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective); the M500M’s at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). TDP is 120 W versus 30 W. The M4000 is a single-slot card with a 6-pin connector and 300 W suggested PSU; the M500M is an MXM module with no connectors. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 versus MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.2 versus portable-device-dependent. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1); the M500M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two benchmarks directly compare these GPUs, and the M4000 wins both decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, the M4000 scores 19,118 against the M500M’s 5,986, a 68.7% advantage. This test exercises general-purpose compute on the GPU’s shading units, and the 4.3x difference in shading units explains the result. The M4000’s 2.573 TFLOPS of FP32 compute is nearly three times the M500M’s 863.2 GFLOPS, and the memory bandwidth advantage of 192.3 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s prevents any bandwidth starvation.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the gap widens further. The M4000 scores 24,640 versus the M500M’s 5,222, a 78.8% difference. Vulkan’s lower-level API can expose raw hardware capabilities more directly, and the M4000’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture with DirectX 12 (12_1) support likely handles modern graphics primitives more efficiently than the M500M’s original Maxwell with DirectX 12 (11_0). The M4000’s nearest rivals in the average benchmark score include the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (delta -0.3%) and AMD Radeon 610M (delta +0.4%), while the M500M’s nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro M4000 (delta +1.2%) and NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (delta +1.7%). Both cards land in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, but the M4000’s broader benchmark suite includes low PassMark scores that pull its average down.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the data, the M4000 wins every recorded comparison. Its strengths are in compute-heavy workloads, as evidenced by the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan results, and in memory-intensive tasks thanks to its 8 GB GDDR5 configuration with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The M4000’s 1,664 shading units and 104 TMUs make it suitable for rendering, simulation, and any professional application that can utilize massive parallel throughput. Its 64 ROPs and 49.47 GPixel/s pixel rate indicate strong rasterization capability, though no direct benchmark confirms this.

The M500M’s only advantage is its power profile. At 30 W TDP with no power connectors and an MXM module form factor, it fits into portable devices where the M4000’s 120 W TDP and single-slot PCIe design would be impossible. The M500M’s 384 shading units and 8 ROPs are sufficient for basic display output and light compute, but the data shows no benchmark where it outperforms the M4000. Its 2 GB DDR3 memory limits it to small textures and datasets. The M500M’s nearest rival comparisons show it performing within 1.9% of GPUs like the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M and AMD FirePro M4000, placing it in the low-end mobile segment. The M4000, despite its similar average score, has a ceiling far higher — its PassMark G3D score of 6,680 and PassMark GPU Compute score of 2,660 suggest capabilities the M500M cannot approach. For any user requiring professional-grade compute or high-bandwidth memory access, the M4000 is the clear choice; the M500M exists only for ultra-low-power mobile scenarios where the M4000 cannot physically fit.