NVIDIA Quadro M500M vs AMD Radeon R7 250
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA Quadro M500M and AMD Radeon R7 250 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro M500M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 2 year(s) 6 month(s) later
- Around 7% higher boost clock speed: 1124 MHz vs 1050 MHz
- Around 20% better floating-point performance: 863.2 gflops vs 716.8 gflops
- 2.5x lower typical power consumption: 30 Watt vs 75 Watt
- Around 57% higher memory clock speed: 1800 MHz vs 1150 MHz
- Around 11% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1171 vs 1051
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 27 April 2016 vs 8 October 2013 |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz vs 1050 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops vs 716.8 gflops |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt vs 75 Watt |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz vs 1150 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1171 vs 1051 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 250
- Around 25% higher texture fill rate: 22.4 GTexel / s vs 17.98 GTexel / s
- Around 56% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 283 vs 181
- Around 23% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 7525 vs 6099
- Around 83% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 3170 vs 1729
- Around 83% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 3170 vs 1729
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3356 vs 3122
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3356 vs 3122
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 22.4 GTexel / s vs 17.98 GTexel / s |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 283 vs 181 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 7525 vs 6099 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2179 vs 2174 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2179 vs 2174 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 3170 vs 1729 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 3170 vs 1729 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3356 vs 3122 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3356 vs 3122 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA Quadro M500M
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R7 250
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA Quadro M500M | AMD Radeon R7 250 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 1171 | 1051 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 181 | 283 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6099 | 7525 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2174 | 2179 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2174 | 2179 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1729 | 3170 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1729 | 3170 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3122 | 3356 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3122 | 3356 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 20.161 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 304.279 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.655 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 30.046 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 96.934 | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA Quadro M500M | AMD Radeon R7 250 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |
| Code name | GM108 | Oland |
| Launch date | 27 April 2016 | 8 October 2013 |
| Place in performance rating | 1084 | 1087 |
| Type | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Design | AMD Radeon R7 200 Series | |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $89 | |
| Price now | $78.34 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 27.62 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | 1050 MHz |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | |
| Floating-point performance | 863.2 gflops | 716.8 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 384 |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 GTexel / s | 22.4 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Stream Processors | 384 | |
| Transistor count | 1,040 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Laptop size | large | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | N / A |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | |
| Length | 168 mm | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12 | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB / s | 72 GB/s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 1150 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR3 | DDR3 / GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
Technologies |
||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| FreeSync | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA Quadro M500M with others
NVIDIAQuadro M500M vs
ATIRadeon 9100
NVIDIAQuadro M500M vs
AMDRadeon R7 250
NVIDIAQuadro M500M vs
AMDFirePro M4150
NVIDIAQuadro M500M vs
IntelIris Graphics 6100
NVIDIAQuadro M500M vs
AMDRadeon R7 350
NVIDIAQuadro M500M vs
IntelUHD Graphics P630
