AMD FirePro M5100 vs AMD FirePro W4100 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data separates these two AMD professional cards cleanly. The AMD FirePro M5100 is the stronger performer in raw compute, scoring 6830 in Geekbench OpenCL against 5478 for the AMD FirePro W4100, a 24.7% advantage. That single head-to-head result defines the relationship: if your workload is OpenCL compute, the M5100 wins outright.

The M5100 also holds a higher standing in the overall GPU percentile ranking, sitting at the 38th percentile versus the W4100's 34th. Its average benchmark score of 6830 places it near the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6764) and above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6698). The W4100, with an average score of 5987, lands almost exactly at parity with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986) and Quadro K4000 (5982), and slightly behind the GeForce GTX 770M (6000).

Choose the M5100 if you need maximum compute throughput from a mobile workstation module. Choose the W4100 if you need a compact, single-slot desktop card with four dedicated display outputs, and you can accept lower raw OpenCL performance. Both are end-of-life products, so availability is limited to used or refurbished channels, but the data is clear about their relative positions.

Where Each One Wins

The M5100 wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by a decisive margin. It also has a higher percentile ranking (38 vs 34) and a higher average benchmark score (6830 vs 5987). In compute-heavy tasks that leverage OpenCL, the M5100 is simply the faster card.

The W4100 has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its advantage lies entirely in its physical and interface characteristics. It is a single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, no external power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It is also the only one of the two with a recorded TDP (50 W). The M5100, by contrast, is an MXM module (MXM-A 3.0) with display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning its output configuration is tied to the host laptop or mobile chassis.

So the use-case split is clear: the M5100 wins on performance, the W4100 wins on deployment flexibility in a desktop workstation.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same fundamental architecture: GCN 1.0, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both have 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving an identical transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The underlying chip names differ: the M5100 uses Venus, while the W4100 uses Cape Verde.

The compute configurations are not identical. The M5100 has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The W4100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That difference in shader and texture hardware explains much of the performance gap. The M5100's pixel rate is 12.40 GPixel/s versus 10.08 GPixel/s for the W4100, and its texture rate is 31.00 GTexel/s versus 20.16 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput follows the same pattern: 992.0 GFLOPS for the M5100, 645.1 GFLOPS for the W4100.

Clock behavior also differs. The M5100 has explicit base and boost clocks of 725 MHz and 775 MHz. The W4100 has no recorded base or boost clock values. Memory clocks differ as well: the M5100 runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the W4100 runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the higher clock gives the M5100 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth versus 64.00 GB/s for the W4100.

API support is identical: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores. The M5100 has no recorded TDP, while the W4100 is rated at 50 W, which is typical for a single-slot desktop card with no power connectors.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6830 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 24.7% higher than the W4100's 5478.

Q: Are these cards the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are GCN 1.0 on a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,500 million transistors and a 123 mm² die. They differ in chip name (Venus vs Cape Verde) and compute unit counts.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The W4100 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The M5100's outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary with the host mobile workstation.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The M5100 has 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the W4100 has 64.00 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the W4100 require a power connector?

A: No, the W4100 has no external power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. Its TDP is 50 W. The M5100 has no recorded TDP because it is an MXM module powered by the host system.

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

A: The M5100 is 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M370, 2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010, and 1.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M. The W4100 is effectively tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (0% delta) and Quadro K4000 (0.1% ahead), and 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head test is Geekbench OpenCL, and the M5100 wins it decisively. The M5100 posts 6830 points against the W4100's 5478, a delta of 24.7%. That is a substantial gap, not a marginal one. In practical terms, any OpenCL workload that scales with shader count and memory bandwidth will favor the M5100 by roughly a quarter.

That 24.7% advantage aligns with the underlying hardware differences. The M5100 has 25% more shading units (640 vs 512), 25% more TMUs (40 vs 32), and a 12.5% memory clock advantage (1125 MHz vs 1000 MHz). FP32 throughput is 53.8% higher (992.0 GFLOPS vs 645.1 GFLOPS), though the OpenCL score gap is smaller than that, suggesting the test is not purely compute-bound.

The W4100 has no recorded head-to-head wins. Its only additional benchmark is Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 6496, but the M5100 has no Vulkan score in the database for comparison. That omission means the Vulkan result is informative about the W4100's API support (Vulkan 1.2.170) but cannot be used as a direct comparison point.

When placing these cards against their nearest rivals, the M5100 sits in a tight cluster: 1% above the R7 M370, 2% above the GT 1010, 1.7% below the GTX 675M, and 2.1% below the R5 M240. The W4100 sits in an even tighter cluster: within 0.2% of the Quadro K4000M, Quadro K4000, RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server, and GTX 770M. The W4100's nearest rivals are all within a 0.2% band, which suggests its performance level is a stable reference point in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification fields. The M5100 uses the Venus chip, while the W4100 uses Cape Verde. Both are GCN 1.0, but the M5100 belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation, while the W4100 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation.

Compute resources: the M5100 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The W4100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The M5100's clock is explicitly recorded as 725 MHz base and 775 MHz boost, while the W4100 has no recorded base or boost clock. Memory clock: 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) for the M5100, 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the W4100.

Memory bandwidth: 72.00 GB/s for the M5100, 64.00 GB/s for the W4100. Pixel rate: 12.40 GPixel/s versus 10.08 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 31.00 GTexel/s versus 20.16 GTexel/s. FP32: 992.0 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS.

Form factor and interface: the M5100 is an MXM module with MXM-A (3.0) bus interface. The W4100 is a single-slot card with PCIe 3.0 x16, measuring 171 mm (6.7 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height. The M5100 has no recorded dimensions.

Power and display: the W4100 has a TDP of 50 W, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The M5100 has no TDP recorded. Display outputs: the W4100 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2; the M5100's outputs are portable-device dependent.

Release timing: the M5100 launched on 2013-10-15, while the W4100 launched on 2014-08-12. The M5100's predecessor is "FirePro Mobility" and its successor is "Radeon Pro Mobile." The W4100's predecessor is "FirePro Terascale" and its successor is "Radeon Pro Polaris." Both are end-of-life. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The identical architecture, process node, die size, and transistor count mean the performance gap comes entirely from configuration and clocks, not from a generational leap. The W4100's lower compute counts and slower memory make it a lighter-weight option, while the M5100 extracts more from the same silicon.