AMD FirePro M5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE and the AMD FirePro M5100 represent two distinct approaches to mobile and desktop graphics from the same era, with the data showing a narrow but clear performance edge for the NVIDIA part. In the sole benchmark recorded, the GeForce GTX 560 SE scores 7171, while the FirePro M5100 trails at 6830, yielding a 5% delta in favor of the NVIDIA card. This places the GTX 560 SE at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M5100 sits just one point lower at the 38th percentile. The performance gap is consistent with the nearest rival data, where the GTX 560 SE trades blows with the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (deltaPct 0) and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (deltaPct -0.4), while the FirePro M5100 finds itself in a tight cluster with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (deltaPct -1.7).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows a decisive if modest victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE. The score of 7171 against 6830 represents a 5% advantage, which is significant enough to register as a win in every category where these two parts overlap. Looking at the nearest rivals for each card, the GTX 560 SE’s score places it within 0.7% of the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203) and 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (7157), indicating that it is punching at a level well above its modest specification sheet. The FirePro M5100, by contrast, scores 6830, which is 2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6698) but 2.1% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6975). This suggests that while the FirePro M5100 is competitive within its own segment, it does not reach the same tier as the GTX 560 SE.

Breaking down the raw throughput numbers provides context for this result. The GTX 560 SE delivers 847.9 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the FirePro M5100 manages 992.0 GFLOPS — a case where the AMD part has a theoretical compute advantage of roughly 17%. Yet the benchmark result runs counter to this, indicating that the GTX 560 SE’s higher texture rate (35.33 GTexel/s vs 31.00 GTexel/s) and superior memory bandwidth (91.87 GB/s vs 72.00 GB/s) play a larger role in the OpenCL workload. The pixel rate also favors the FirePro M5100 at 12.40 GPixel/s versus 8.832 GPixel/s, but again, this does not translate into a benchmark win. The data suggests that the GTX 560 SE’s wider 192-bit memory bus and higher effective memory speed (3.8 Gbps vs 4.5 Gbps on the FirePro, though on a narrower 128-bit bus) provide a bandwidth advantage that outweighs the FirePro’s raw shader count and clock speed advantages.

The deltaPct values in the nearestRivals lists reinforce this interpretation. The GTX 560 SE’s closest rival, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580, scores 7170 — essentially identical — while the FirePro M5100’s closest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 M370, scores 6764, which is 1% lower. This means the GTX 560 SE is not just ahead of the FirePro M5100; it is competing with integrated graphics from a later generation, whereas the FirePro M5100 is bracketed by older discrete mobile parts. For users prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL applications, the GTX 560 SE is the clear choice, despite its older architecture and higher power draw.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE is the stronger performer in the one head-to-head benchmark available, winning 1 out of 1 tests with a 5% margin. The benchmark results indicate that any user comparing these two cards for OpenCL workloads should favor the GTX 560 SE, as its performance percentile (39th vs 38th) and absolute score (7171 vs 6830) are both superior. The GTX 560 SE also benefits from a more favorable competitive position: its nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 970 and the Radeon Vega 8 Mobile, both of which are within 0.7% of its score, whereas the FirePro M5100’s nearest rivals are all at least 1% slower or faster, indicating a less consistent performance profile.

However, the FirePro M5100 is not without merit. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory is double the GTX 560 SE’s 1 GB, which could matter in memory-constrained scenarios, but no benchmark data is available to confirm this advantage. The FirePro M5100 also has a higher FP32 compute rating (992.0 GFLOPS vs 847.9 GFLOPS) and a higher pixel rate (12.40 GPixel/s vs 8.832 GPixel/s), suggesting that in workloads that are purely compute-bound or pixel-fill-bound, it could potentially outperform the GTX 560 SE — but the OpenCL test does not reflect this. For a buyer choosing strictly on benchmark evidence, the GTX 560 SE wins. For a buyer who values the FirePro M5100’s larger memory pool and mobile form factor, the data is less clear, but the performance deficit remains a deciding factor.

The production status of both cards is end-of-life, and neither has a launch MSRP in the data, so cost is not a distinguishing factor. The GTX 560 SE’s dual-slot design and 150 W TDP classify it as a desktop-oriented card, while the FirePro M5100’s MXM module form factor targets laptops and workstations. This form factor difference is critical: the GTX 560 SE cannot be installed in a mobile chassis, and the FirePro M5100 cannot be installed in a standard desktop PCIe slot without an adapter. Therefore, the verdict depends heavily on the target platform. For a desktop system, the GTX 560 SE is the better performer; for a mobile workstation, the FirePro M5100 is the only option, despite its lower score.

Architecture Differences

The GTX 560 SE is built on NVIDIA’s Fermi 2.0 architecture, specifically the GF114 chip, which is fabricated on TSMC’s 40 nm process. The die measures 332 mm² and contains 1,950 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². In contrast, the FirePro M5100 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture on the Venus chip, fabricated on a more advanced 28 nm process from TSMC. This results in a much smaller die at 123 mm², with 1,500 million transistors and a higher density of 12.2M per mm². The process node difference is generational: 40 nm was standard for high-end cards in 2012, while 28 nm became the norm for mobile parts by late 2013.

The shader configuration differs substantially. The GTX 560 SE has 288 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster output units (ROPs). The FirePro M5100, by contrast, has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD part’s higher shader count is typical of GCN architecture, which uses a wider SIMD design, while Fermi 2.0 relies on fewer, more complex cores. The GTX 560 SE’s higher TMU count (48 vs 40) and higher ROP count (24 vs 16) explain its superior texture rate and pixel rate, respectively, despite the FirePro’s higher pixel rate on paper (12.40 GPixel/s vs 8.832 GPixel/s) — a discrepancy that arises from the FirePro’s higher clock speeds rather than architectural efficiency.

Memory architecture also diverges. The GTX 560 SE uses a 192-bit bus with 1 GB of GDDR5, while the FirePro M5100 uses a narrower 128-bit bus but compensates with 2 GB of GDDR5. The bandwidth figures favor the GTX 560 SE at 91.87 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s, which is a direct consequence of the wider bus and higher memory clock (957 MHz vs 1125 MHz, but with different effective rates). The FirePro M5100’s higher effective memory speed (4.5 Gbps vs 3.8 Gbps) is negated by its narrower bus. Additionally, the FirePro M5100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 560 SE has no Vulkan support listed; both support DirectX 12 (with the GTX 560 SE at 11_0 and the FirePro at 11_1) and OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The GTX 560 SE has a base clock of 957 MHz on the memory, with no base or boost clock listed for the core, while the FirePro M5100 has a base clock of 725 MHz and a boost clock of 775 MHz. The GTX 560 SE’s memory is 1 GB, the FirePro’s is 2 GB. The bus width is 192-bit versus 128-bit, and bandwidth is 91.87 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s. Shading units number 288 versus 640, TMUs 48 versus 40, and ROPs 24 versus 16. The pixel rate is 8.832 GPixel/s versus 12.40 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 35.33 GTexel/s versus 31.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 847.9 GFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS.

The GTX 560 SE is a dual-slot card with a 150 W TDP, requiring a 450 W power supply and two 6-pin connectors, while the FirePro M5100 is an MXM module with no TDP, power connector, or PSU specification listed. The GTX 560 SE uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface and has display outputs of 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a; the FirePro M5100 uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface and has display outputs that are "Portable Device Dependent." The GTX 560 SE measures 210 mm (8.3 inches) in length, while the FirePro M5100 has no dimensions listed. Release dates are February 2012 for the GTX 560 SE and October 2013 for the FirePro M5100. The GTX 560 SE’s predecessor is the GeForce 400 series and successor is the GeForce 600 series; the FirePro M5100’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility and successor is Radeon Pro Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE scores 7171, while the AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6830, giving the GTX 560 SE a 5% advantage.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The GTX 560 SE has a memory bandwidth of 91.87 GB/s, which is higher than the FirePro M5100’s 72.00 GB/s, due to the GTX 560 SE’s wider 192-bit bus.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance of each card?

A: The FirePro M5100 delivers 992.0 GFLOPS, which is higher than the GTX 560 SE’s 847.9 GFLOPS, despite the GTX 560 SE winning the benchmark.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the form factors of the two cards?

A: The GTX 560 SE is a dual-slot desktop card with a 150 W TDP and two 6-pin power connectors, while the FirePro M5100 is an MXM module designed for portable devices with no TDP listed.

Q: How do the cards compare by percentile rank?

A: The GTX 560 SE ranks in the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M5100 ranks in the 38th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE wins in the only benchmark test recorded, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a 5% margin. It also wins on texture rate (35.33 GTexel/s vs 31.00 GTexel/s), memory bandwidth (91.87 GB/s vs 72.00 GB/s), and ROP count (24 vs 16). These advantages make it the better choice for applications that are bandwidth-sensitive or texture-heavy, such as certain OpenCL compute workloads and older game titles that rely on fill rate. Its 150 W TDP and dual-slot design mean it requires a desktop chassis with adequate power delivery, but for a stationary system, it offers superior performance in the measured benchmark.

The AMD FirePro M5100 wins on paper in several categories: FP32 compute (992.0 GFLOPS vs 847.9 GFLOPS), pixel rate (12.40 GPixel/s vs 8.832 GPixel/s), memory capacity (2 GB vs 1 GB), and shading units (640 vs 288). It also has a more advanced 28 nm process, a higher transistor density, and supports Vulkan. These specifications suggest it could win in workloads that are purely compute-bound or pixel-fill-bound, or in scenarios where the larger memory pool is essential. Its MXM form factor makes it the only viable choice for mobile workstations, where the GTX 560 SE cannot be installed. For a user prioritizing portability and memory capacity over benchmark performance, the FirePro M5100 is the appropriate pick, but the data shows it lags the GTX 560 SE in the one measurable comparison available.