NVIDIA Quadro M500M vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the NVIDIA RTX A400 and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M. In the two shared benchmark tests, the RTX A400 wins outright with no contest.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A400 scores 22844 against 5986 for the Quadro M500M. That is a delta of 281.6% in favor of the newer card. OpenCL workloads, which often reflect raw compute throughput across shading units and memory subsystems, show the RTX A400 operating at a completely different performance tier. The Quadro M500M trails by nearly four times, a gap that cannot be closed by driver optimization or workload tuning.

The Vulkan result is even more lopsided. The RTX A400 posts 22237, while the Quadro M500M manages 5222. The delta here is 325.8%. Vulkan is a low-overhead API that tends to expose architectural efficiency and raw hardware capability more directly than older APIs. A delta above 300% indicates that the RTX A400 is not merely faster, it is operating in a class several steps above the M500M.

These are the only two benchmark tests present in the database for both cards, so the head-to-head comparison is narrow but unambiguous. The RTX A400 leads in both tests, with 2 wins out of 2 possible. The Quadro M500M records zero wins.

Looking at the broader average benchmark score, the RTX A400 sits at 6078, while the Quadro M500M averages 5604. That is a 474-point difference, roughly 8.5% on average across all recorded tests. However, that average includes many tests where the M500M has no data, so the head-to-head delta is the more meaningful metric for direct comparison. The average score difference is modest relative to the per-test deltas, which reflects the fact that the M500M's average is based on fewer data points and different workload distributions.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The RTX A400 is the stronger card in every measured category. In OpenCL it leads by 281.6%, and in Vulkan by 325.8%. The RTX A400 also has a higher average benchmark score, 6078 versus 5604, and a better percentile ranking at 35 versus 32. The RTX A400 is currently listed as Active in production, while the Quadro M500M is End-of-life. For any new workstation deployment or upgrade path, the RTX A400 is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements.

The Quadro M500M, however, has one relevant advantage: power draw. The M500M consumes 30 W according to the database, versus 50 W for the RTX A400. For legacy portable systems built around MXM modules, the M500M may be the only physically compatible option, since the RTX A400 uses a single-slot PCIe form factor and a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the M500M uses an MXM-A (3.0) module. Those are different physical and electrical interfaces, so the decision may be dictated by the host system rather than by performance preferences.

Who should pick which: if the system accepts a PCIe card, the RTX A400 is the only rational choice. It wins every benchmark, has more memory, newer architecture, and is still in production. If the system requires an MXM module, the M500M is the only option of the two, despite its lower scores. The data does not support choosing the M500M on performance grounds under any scenario.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and different foundries. The RTX A400 uses the GA107 chip on the Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. The Quadro M500M uses the GM108S chip on the Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The process node difference is substantial: 8 nm versus 28 nm, which affects transistor density and power efficiency.

Transistor counts differ accordingly. The RTX A400 packs 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². The Quadro M500M has 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, for a density of 13.2 million per mm². The RTX A400 has more than eight times the transistor count and roughly three times the density.

The RTX A400 includes hardware features that the M500M lacks entirely. It has 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. The M500M has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. This places the RTX A400 in the DirectX 12 Ultimate tier, with support for API level 12_2, while the M500M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). The RTX A400 also supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, both at 2.706 TFLOPS. The M500M has no recorded FP16 capability.

The memory architecture also reflects the generational gap. The RTX A400 uses GDDR6 memory with 4 GB capacity and a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The M500M uses DDR3 with only 2 GB and a 64-bit bus, delivering 14.40 GB/s. The bandwidth difference is roughly 6.7 times in favor of the RTX A400.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between the two cards are extensive. The RTX A400 has a base clock of 1417 MHz and a boost clock of 1762 MHz. The M500M runs at 1029 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost. The RTX A400's memory runs at 1500 MHz, 12 Gbps effective, while the M500M's memory runs at 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective.

Shading units: the RTX A400 has 768, the M500M has 384. Texture mapping units: 24 versus 16. Raster output units: 16 versus 8. Pixel rate is 28.19 GPixel/s for the RTX A400 versus 8.992 GPixel/s for the M500M. Texture rate is 42.29 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s.

FP32 compute is 2.706 TFLOPS for the RTX A400 versus 863.2 GFLOPS for the M500M. That is roughly 3.1 times more FP32 throughput. The RTX A400 has a TDP of 50 W, the M500M has 30 W. The RTX A400 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The M500M is an MXM module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed.

The bus interface differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RTX A400 versus MXM-A (3.0) for the M500M. Display outputs: the RTX A400 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the M500M is listed as "Portable Device Dependent". Physical dimensions are only recorded for the RTX A400: 163 mm in length and 69 mm in height.

Release dates are far apart. The M500M was released in April 2016, the RTX A400 in April 2024. The M500M is End-of-life, the RTX A400 is Active. The predecessor/successor chains differ as well: the M500M follows Quadro Kepler-M and is succeeded by Quadro Pascal-M, while the RTX A400 follows Quadro Turing and is succeeded by Workstation Ada.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher FP32 performance?

A: The RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the Quadro M500M delivers 863.2 GFLOPS. That is roughly 3.1 times higher throughput for the RTX A400.

Q: Does the Quadro M500M support ray tracing?

A: No. The M500M has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores. The RTX A400 has 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The RTX A400 has 96.00 GB/s bandwidth using GDDR6, while the M500M has 14.40 GB/s using DDR3. The RTX A400 offers about 6.7 times more bandwidth.

Q: Which card is still in production?

A: The RTX A400 is listed as Active in production status. The Quadro M500M is listed as End-of-life.

Q: Are the two cards physically interchangeable?

A: No. The RTX A400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface and is a single-slot card. The M500M uses an MXM-A (3.0) module interface. They are not drop-in compatible.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The RTX A400 is at the 35th percentile, while the Quadro M500M is at the 32nd percentile. The RTX A400 ranks slightly higher in the overall database distribution.