AMD FirePro M5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and AMD FirePro M5100 occupy different corners of the GPU market, and the benchmark data reflects a clear generational and architectural gap. The GTX 1650 is a Turing-based, end-of-life consumer part from 2019, while the FirePro M5100 is a GCN 1.0-based mobile workstation component from 2013, also end-of-life. The single shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the GTX 1650 outperforming the FirePro M5100 by a massive 333.8%, with scores of 29629 versus 6830. This translates to a percentile ranking of 40 for the GTX 1650 versus 38 for the FirePro M5100 among all GPUs, indicating that despite the older rival's professional pedigree, it is far behind in raw compute performance.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 is the definitive choice for any workload that relies on general-purpose compute or modern API support. Its 333.8% lead in OpenCL performance over the FirePro M5100 is not a marginal difference; it is a categorical one. The GTX 1650 also posts an average benchmark score of 7472, while the FirePro M5100 sits at 6830, a difference that places the NVIDIA card in the 40th percentile versus the AMD card's 38th. For users who need the highest possible frame rates or compute throughput in a legacy desktop or laptop setup, the GTX 1650 is the only rational pick based on the numbers.

The FirePro M5100, however, is not without a niche. Its dual-slot MXM module form factor and "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs suggest it was designed for specific mobile workstations where the GTX 1650, with its 229 mm length and fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a), would not physically fit. If a system is locked to the MXM-A (3.0) interface, the FirePro M5100 is the only one of the two that can be installed. In that constrained scenario, the FirePro M5100 is the usable option, despite its lower compute scores. For any other purpose, the GTX 1650 wins outright on performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different manufacturing processes and architectures. The GTX 1650 uses the TU117 chip based on the Turing architecture, fabricated on a 12 nm process at TSMC. This chip integrates 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5M / mm². In contrast, the FirePro M5100 uses the Venus chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, also from TSMC, but on a much older 28 nm process. This chip contains only 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a transistor density of 12.2M / mm². The GTX 1650's newer process node allows for nearly three times the transistor count in a die that is only 77 mm² larger.

The compute resources differ accordingly. The GTX 1650 has 896 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster output units (ROPs). The FirePro M5100 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the NVIDIA card has 40% more shading units, 40% more TMUs, and double the ROPs. Clock speeds also favor the GTX 1650, with a base of 1485 MHz and a boost of 1665 MHz, compared to the FirePro M5100's base of 725 MHz and boost of 775 MHz. The GTX 1650's clock advantage is substantial, with a base clock that is over double the FirePro M5100's boost clock.

API support reveals another architectural divide. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro M5100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The GTX 1650 also has a higher pixel rate of 53.28 GPixel/s and texture rate of 93.24 GTexel/s, versus the FirePro M5100's 12.40 GPixel/s and 31.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 2.984 TFLOPS for the GTX 1650 and 992.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro M5100, a three-fold difference. The GTX 1650 also has FP16 capability at 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1), while the FirePro M5100 has no listed FP16 performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this workload, the GTX 1650 scores 29629, while the FirePro M5100 scores 6830. The delta is 333.8%, meaning the NVIDIA card is more than four times faster in this compute test. This result is indicative of the combined effect of the GTX 1650's higher clocks, more shading units, and larger memory bandwidth.

The GTX 1650's memory subsystem contributes significantly to this win. It has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 128.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory also on a 128-bit bus, but its bandwidth is only 72.00 GB/s. The memory clock is 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) for the GTX 1650 versus 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) for the FirePro M5100. This bandwidth gap of 56.1 GB/s directly impacts OpenCL workloads that are memory-bound.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context for the GTX 1650's position. Its average benchmark score of 7472 is 0.3% above the AMD Radeon HD 8850M (7447) and 0.4% above the Intel UHD Graphics 750 (7441). It is 1% below the Intel Arc A310 (7550). This places the GTX 1650 in a tight cluster of mid-range GPUs, where small deltas determine ranking. The FirePro M5100, with an average score of 6830, sits 1% above the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6764) and 2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6698), but it is 1.7% below the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6946) and 2.1% below the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6975). The FirePro M5100's position among its rivals is less favorable, as it trails two of the four listed competitors.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 has an average benchmark score of 7472, while the AMD FirePro M5100 has an average score of 6830, a difference of 642 points.

Q: How much faster is the GTX 1650 in OpenCL compute?

A: The GTX 1650 scores 29629 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the FirePro M5100's 6830, which is a 333.8% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The GTX 1650 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro M5100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), a lower feature level.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. Both use a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The GTX 1650 has 4,700 million transistors, whereas the FirePro M5100 has 1,500 million transistors.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 and the AMD FirePro M5100 have a production status of "End-of-life."

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 1650 wins in every measurable performance category. It has a higher pixel rate (53.28 GPixel/s versus 12.40 GPixel/s), a higher texture rate (93.24 GTexel/s versus 31.00 GTexel/s), and superior FP32 compute (2.984 TFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS). The benchmark data shows a 333.8% lead in OpenCL, and its average score is 9.4% higher. For gaming, DirectX 12 (12_1) support and higher memory bandwidth (128.1 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s) make it the stronger candidate for any modern title. The GTX 1650's 75 W TDP and lack of power connectors also suggest it can be deployed in systems with a 250 W suggested PSU, which is a practical advantage for desktop builds.

The FirePro M5100's only advantage is its form factor. As an MXM Module with a dual-slot width and MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, it is designed for specific laptop or small-form-factor workstation chassis. Its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they are determined by the host system, unlike the GTX 1650's fixed set of 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, and 1x DisplayPort 1.4a. For a user with an MXM-A slot who cannot use a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 card, the FirePro M5100 is the only option that fits, regardless of its lower performance. In all other scenarios, the GTX 1650 is the clear winner.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field. The process node is 12 nm for the GTX 1650 versus 28 nm for the FirePro M5100. Transistor count is 4,700 million versus 1,500 million. Die size is 200 mm² versus 123 mm². Base clock is 1485 MHz versus 725 MHz, and boost clock is 1665 MHz versus 775 MHz. Memory clock is 2001 MHz (8 Gbps effective) versus 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Memory size is 4 GB versus 2 GB, and memory bandwidth is 128.1 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s.

The shading units are 896 versus 640, TMUs are 56 versus 40, and ROPs are 32 versus 16. Pixel rate is 53.28 GPixel/s versus 12.40 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 93.24 GTexel/s versus 31.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 2.984 TFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS. The GTX 1650 has an FP16 rating of 5.967 TFLOPS (2:1), while the FirePro M5100 has none listed. The GTX 1650 has a TDP of 75 W, while the FirePro M5100 has no TDP listed. Slot width is Dual-slot for the GTX 1650 versus MXM Module for the FirePro M5100.

The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the GTX 1650 versus MXM-A (3.0) for the FirePro M5100. Display outputs are 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a for the GTX 1650 versus "Portable Device Dependent" for the FirePro M5100. The GTX 1650 has no power connectors, while the FirePro M5100 has no power connector data. The suggested PSU is 250 W for the GTX 1650, with no equivalent for the FirePro M5100. The GTX 1650 has a length of 229 mm (9 inches), height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), and width of 35 mm (1.4 inches), while the FirePro M5100 has no dimensions listed. The release dates are 2019-04-22 for the GTX 1650 and 2013-10-15 for the FirePro M5100. The GTX 1650 has a launch MSRP of 149 USD, while the FirePro M5100 has no launch MSRP listed.