AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M and the AMD FirePro M4000, and it is a decisive victory for the NVIDIA part. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro M5000M scores 22920 points while the FirePro M4000 scores 5537 points. That is a delta of 313.9 percent, meaning the NVIDIA GPU delivers more than four times the compute throughput in this particular workload. The result is not close, and it reflects the fundamental gap in raw processing resources between the two mobile workstation parts.

When placed against its broader peer group, the Quadro M5000M averages 6481 points across all recorded benchmarks. Its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile at 6476 points (a delta of 0.1 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M at 6493 points (a delta of -0.2 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M at 6513 points (a delta of -0.5 percent), and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 at 6554 points (a delta of -1.1 percent). These figures show that the Quadro M5000M sits in a tight cluster, effectively trading places with older midrange gaming GPUs and a modern integrated solution. Its percentile rank among all GPUs is 37, which places it slightly below the median of the entire database.

The FirePro M4000, by contrast, averages 5537 points, and its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508 points (a delta of 0.5 percent), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 points (a delta of 0.7 percent), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 points (a delta of 1 percent), and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M at 5604 points (a delta of -1.2 percent). The FirePro M4000 is therefore within a few percentage points of several low-power mobile GPUs, and its percentile rank of 32 puts it below the Quadro M5000M in the overall distribution. The head-to-head OpenCL result amplifies this gap, since the Quadro M5000M is not merely ahead by a small margin but by an order of magnitude in raw score terms.

No other benchmarks were recorded for both cards simultaneously, so the head-to-head section of the database captures only this one test. Still, the OpenCL workload is a strong proxy for general-purpose compute performance, which matters for professional applications that offload work to the GPU.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and vastly different silicon budgets. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M uses the GM204 chip, built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the AMD FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip, built on the GCN 1.0 architecture. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The GM204 die contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The Chelsea die, in contrast, packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. In absolute terms, the NVIDIA chip has more than three times the transistor count and more than three times the die area. This directly explains the large performance gap in the OpenCL benchmark.

Clock behavior also differs. The Quadro M5000M has a base clock of 962 MHz and a boost clock of 1051 MHz. The FirePro M4000 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA part also runs its memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), which is higher than the AMD memory clock. The memory subsystems diverge sharply: the Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256 bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth, while the FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. That is a 2.5x advantage in bandwidth for the NVIDIA card, alongside a 8x advantage in capacity.

The compute resource counts reinforce the architectural gap. The Quadro M5000M has 1536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 raster output units. The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These numbers translate directly into fillrate and throughput figures: the NVIDIA card achieves a pixel rate of 67.26 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 100.9 GTexel/s, versus 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s for the AMD card. Floating point performance is similarly lopsided, with the Quadro M5000M delivering 3.229 TFLOPS of FP32 compute against 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro M4000. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

Power consumption reflects the different design targets. The Quadro M5000M has a TDP of 100 W, while the FirePro M4000 is rated at 33 W. Both use an MXM module form factor with no external power connectors, but the bus interfaces differ: MXM-B (3.0) for NVIDIA and MXM-A (3.0) for AMD. Both are end-of-life products, with the NVIDIA part released in August 2015 and the AMD part in June 2012.

API support also differs. The Quadro M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version, which may matter for compatibility with newer software.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M5000M wins in essentially every measurable category from the database. Its OpenCL score is 313.9 percent higher than the FirePro M4000, and its architectural resources are several times larger across the board. For any workload that stresses raw compute, texturing, pixel throughput, or memory bandwidth, the NVIDIA part is the clear choice. The 8 GB memory capacity also makes it suitable for large datasets, whereas the FirePro M4000's 1024 MB pool is a hard constraint for modern professional applications.

The FirePro M4000 has one advantage that matters in certain mobile scenarios: power draw. At 33 W, it consumes one third of the Quadro M5000M's 100 W TDP. For a laptop chassis with limited thermal headroom or a smaller battery, the lower power envelope can be decisive. The smaller die size (123 mm² versus 398 mm²) and lower transistor count also suggest a cheaper and more thermally efficient design. If the workload is light, such as basic 2D CAD viewing or legacy OpenGL applications, the FirePro M4000 may suffice while consuming far less power.

The percentile ranks tell a similar story. The Quadro M5000M sits at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile. Both are below the median, but the NVIDIA part is closer to it. In the context of their respective rival groups, the FirePro M4000 is actually competitive with low-end mobile GPUs like the GeForce MX130 and the Quadro M500M, whereas the Quadro M5000M trades blows with the GeForce GTX 670M and Intel UHD Graphics P750. That places the two cards in different performance strata despite both being mobile workstation products.

For users who prioritize longevity and compute headroom, the Quadro M5000M is the obvious pick. For users who need a minimal-power GPU for occasional professional use, the FirePro M4000 has a niche. The data, however, does not support any scenario where the FirePro M4000 outperforms the Quadro M5000M in a benchmark.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M than the AMD FirePro M4000 in OpenCL?

A: The Quadro M5000M scores 22920 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the FirePro M4000 scores 5537. That is a 313.9 percent advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Which GPU has more memory, and does it matter?

A: The Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5. The NVIDIA card also has a 256 bit memory bus versus 128 bit, giving it 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth compared to 64.00 GB/s.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The Quadro M5000M has a TDP of 100 W, and the FirePro M4000 has a TDP of 33 W. Both use MXM modules with no external power connectors.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro M5000M was released in August 2015, and the FirePro M4000 was released in June 2012.

Q: Which card supports the newer DirectX version?

A: The Quadro M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The NVIDIA part has the higher feature level.

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

A: The Quadro M5000M averages 6481 points, within 1.1 percent of the Intel UHD Graphics P750 (6554) and the GeForce GTX 670M (6513). The FirePro M4000 averages 5537 points, within 1.2 percent of the Quadro M500M (5604) and the GeForce MX130 (5508).

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the recorded data.

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro M5000M | AMD FirePro M4000 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Chip | GM204 | Chelsea |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) | FirePro Mobile (Mx000) |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 962 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 1051 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 512 |

| TMUs | 96 | 32 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 67.26 GPixel/s | 10.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 100.9 GTexel/s | 21.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.229 TFLOPS | 691.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 33 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | August 2015 | June 2012 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler-M | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal-M | Radeon Pro Mobile |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 22920 | 5537 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 6481 | 5537 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 37 | 32 |