NVIDIA Quadro M500M vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a decisive sweep for the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 across the two shared tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P2000 scores 20125 against the M500M's 5986, a margin of 236.2 percent. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap in raw compute throughput that places the P2000 in a completely different performance class. The M500M's score of 5986, by contrast, sits near the lower end of what the database records for mobile workstation parts.

The Geekbench Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The P2000 posts 23566, while the M500M manages only 5222, yielding a delta of 351.3 percent. That means the P2000 delivers more than three and a half times the Vulkan performance of the older Maxwell part. For any workload that leverages modern graphics APIs, the gap is effectively insurmountable. The M500M was not designed for such tasks, and the data reflects that limitation clearly.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the P2000's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 6049, with a percentile rank of 35 among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 (0.5 percent higher) and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019 (0.5 percent lower). The M500M, by comparison, averages 5604, placing it at the 32nd percentile. Its nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 (1.2 percent higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508 (1.7 percent higher). The P2000's average score is 445 points higher than the M500M's, a gap that persists across every recorded workload.

The win tally is unambiguous: the P2000 takes 2 wins out of 2 head-to-head comparisons. There is no recorded test where the M500M gains an advantage. The data shows a complete performance domination, with the only question being the magnitude of the P2000's lead in each specific workload.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations, and the gap in their specifications explains the benchmark results. The P2000 uses the Pascal architecture, built on TSMC's 16 nm process node. The M500M uses the older Maxwell architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process. The node shrink alone gives the P2000 a substantial efficiency and density advantage. The P2000 packs 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. The M500M contains only 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, for a density of 13.2 million per square millimeter. That is nearly double the transistor density on the newer part.

The compute resources differ by an even larger factor. The P2000 features 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 render output units. The M500M has just 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the P2000 has roughly 2.7 times the shader count, 4 times the texture units, and 5 times the ROPs. The pixel rate tells the story: the P2000 outputs 59.20 GPixel/s, while the M500M manages only 8.992 GPixel/s. Texture rate is similarly divergent, at 94.72 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds also favor the newer part, though less dramatically. The P2000 runs at a base clock of 1076 MHz with a boost of 1480 MHz. The M500M has a base of 1029 MHz and a boost of 1124 MHz. The boost clock difference of 356 MHz gives the P2000 additional headroom under load. The FP32 throughput reflects all these factors: the P2000 delivers 3.031 TFLOPS, while the M500M produces just 863.2 GFLOPS. That is a 3.5 times advantage in single-precision compute.

Memory architecture further separates the two. The P2000 uses 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, achieving 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The M500M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with only 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a tenfold difference in memory bandwidth, which heavily impacts memory-bound workloads. The P2000's memory clock is 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the M500M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The P2000 also supports FP16 at 47.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, a feature the M500M lacks entirely, with no recorded FP16 capability.

Process node, transistor count, die size, compute units, memory subsystem, and clock speeds all point in the same direction. The P2000 is a fundamentally more capable processor, and the architectural gap is visible in every recorded metric.

Where Each One Wins

The P2000 wins in every scenario where the two GPUs can be compared directly. In compute-heavy workloads such as OpenCL and Vulkan, its lead is overwhelming. The 236.2 percent advantage in OpenCL means tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering, physics simulation, and data processing will complete in a fraction of the time on the P2000. The 351.3 percent lead in Vulkan makes the P2000 the clear choice for any modern graphics workload, including CAD visualization and real-time rendering.

The M500M's role is more limited. With only 2 GB of DDR3 memory and 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth, it is suited only to lightweight tasks: basic 2D desktop acceleration, low-resolution video playback, and undemanding display workloads. Its 30 W TDP and MXM module form factor indicate it was designed for thin-and-light mobile workstations where power efficiency matters more than raw performance. The P2000, with its 75 W TDP and single-slot design, requires more power but delivers far more capability.

The data also shows the P2000 holds up well against its own nearest rivals. It sits within 0.8 percent of the AMD Radeon RX 6400 and within 0.5 percent of the NVIDIA RTX A400, meaning it remains competitive even against newer parts in the database. The M500M, by contrast, is clustered with much older hardware: the AMD FirePro M4000, the AMD Radeon HD 8790M, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M. Its 1.7 to 1.9 percent deltas against those parts show it is roughly on par with a mid-range mobile GPU from several years earlier.

For professional users, the choice is clear. The P2000 is the only one of the two that can handle modern GPU-accelerated workflows with acceptable performance. The M500M is a legacy part that the benchmark data shows as being outclassed by nearly every contemporary alternative.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field recorded in the database. The P2000 uses the GP106 chip, while the M500M uses the GM108S. The architecture is Pascal versus Maxwell, and the process node is 16 nm versus 28 nm. The foundry is TSMC for both, but the transistor counts diverge sharply: 4,400 million versus 1,020 million. Die size is 200 mm² versus 77 mm², and transistor density is 22.0M per mm² versus 13.2M per mm².

Memory configuration is another major split. The P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The M500M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks are 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The compute units differ as well: 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs on the P2000, versus 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs on the M500M.

Clock speeds are higher on the P2000: 1076 MHz base and 1480 MHz boost, compared to 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost on the M500M. Pixel rate is 59.20 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 94.72 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 3.031 TFLOPS versus 863.2 GFLOPS. The P2000 has a recorded FP16 rate of 47.36 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio; the M500M has no FP16 data.

Power and form factor also differ. The P2000 has a 75 W TDP, a single-slot design, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The M500M has a 30 W TDP, an MXM module form factor, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 on the P2000 versus MXM-A (3.0) on the M500M. Display outputs are 4x DisplayPort 1.4a on the P2000, while the M500M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The P2000 has recorded dimensions of 196 mm length and 111 mm height; the M500M has no dimensions listed. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) on the P2000 versus 12 (11_0) on the M500M, with both supporting OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 than the M500M in OpenCL?

A: The P2000 scores 20125 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the M500M scores 5986. This represents a 236.2 percent advantage for the P2000.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two GPUs?

A: The largest gap is in Geekbench Vulkan, where the P2000 scores 23566 versus the M500M's 5222, a delta of 351.3 percent.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The P2000 has 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth from 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus. The M500M has 14.40 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these two cards?

A: The P2000 has a TDP of 75 W, while the M500M has a TDP of 30 W. The P2000 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the M500M lists none.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The P2000's average score is 6049, with rivals including the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6077 (0.5 percent higher) and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6019 (0.5 percent lower). The M500M's average is 5604, with rivals such as the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 (1.2 percent higher) and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508 (1.7 percent higher).

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The P2000 has a transistor density of 22.0 million per square millimeter, while the M500M has 13.2 million per square millimeter. The P2000 also packs 4,400 million transistors versus 1,020 million on the M500M.