AMD FirePro M5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive outcome in the only direct benchmark comparison available. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 scores 8,831 points, while the AMD FirePro M5100 trails at 6,830 points. That is a 29.3% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a substantial gap that places the two professional mobile GPUs in different performance tiers for compute workloads.

The Quadro K1200's average benchmark score of 8,265 sits well above the FirePro M5100's 6,830. This difference is reflected in their percentile rankings among all GPUs: the Quadro lands at the 43rd percentile, while the FirePro sits at the 38th. The gap between these percentiles, while modest, indicates that the Quadro is rated higher in the overall distribution of GPU performance.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the picture. The Quadro K1200's closest competitors in the database include the AMD Radeon R9 M375X (average score 8,325, only 0.7% below the Quadro), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 (8,167, 1.2% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M (8,135, 1.6% behind), and the AMD Radeon R9 M360 (8,129, 1.7% behind). These deltas are all small, suggesting that the Quadro K1200 sits in a tightly contested cluster of mid-range mobile GPUs, but it edges out each rival by a slim margin.

The FirePro M5100's rivals tell a different story. Its nearest competitors are the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (average score 6,975, 2.1% above the FirePro), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6,946, 1.7% above), the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6,764, 1.0% below), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6,698, 2.0% below). The FirePro is essentially in the middle of this pack, with one rival clearly ahead and one clearly behind, but the entire cluster is roughly 1,500 points lower than the Quadro's peer group.

The head-to-head result is unambiguous: the Quadro K1200 wins the only shared benchmark test, with a 29.3% delta. No test in the database shows the FirePro M5100 ahead.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 claims the sole head-to-head victory in the database, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test by a wide margin. This is a compute-oriented benchmark that stresses raw FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth, and the Quadro's numbers support its dominance in that area.

For users prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, the Quadro K1200 is the clear choice. Its FP32 rating of 1,057.8 GFLOPS outpaces the FirePro M5100's 992.0 GFLOPS. The Quadro also delivers higher memory bandwidth at 80.19 GB/s compared to the FirePro's 72.00 GB/s. These specifications align with the benchmark outcome: more compute throughput and faster memory access translate directly into higher OpenCL scores.

The FirePro M5100 does not win any benchmark in the database. However, its architecture offers some theoretical advantages in other domains. It has more shading units (640 versus 512) and more texture mapping units (40 versus 32), which could benefit certain graphics workloads that scale with these resources. Its texture rate of 31.00 GTexel/s is close to the Quadro's 33.06 GTexel/s, despite the FirePro's lower clock speeds. Still, these are not reflected in any recorded benchmark wins.

For Vulkan performance, only the Quadro K1200 has a recorded score: 7,698 in Geekbench Vulkan. The FirePro M5100 has no Vulkan benchmark entry, so no comparison is possible. The Quadro's support for Vulkan 1.4, versus the FirePro's Vulkan 1.2.170, also indicates a more modern API implementation.

In the database's win tally, the result is 1 win for the Quadro K1200 and 0 wins for the FirePro M5100. The practical takeaway is straightforward: for any workload represented by the available benchmarks, the Quadro K1200 is the stronger performer.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip, built on the Maxwell architecture. The AMD FirePro M5100 uses the Venus chip, based on GCN 1.0. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but their internal designs diverge sharply.

The Quadro K1200 packs 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The FirePro M5100 has 1,500 million transistors on a smaller 123 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.2M per mm². The Quadro is therefore both larger and denser, with more transistors to draw upon.

Clock speeds favor the Quadro substantially. Its base clock is 954 MHz with a boost of 1,033 MHz, while the FirePro runs at 725 MHz base and 775 MHz boost. That is a 229 MHz gap at base and a 258 MHz gap at boost, giving the Quadro a significant frequency advantage that helps explain its benchmark dominance.

Memory configurations also differ. The Quadro K1200 comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but at a lower 1125 MHz with 4.5 Gbps effective speed, resulting in 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro has twice the memory capacity and 11.4% more bandwidth.

Core counts present an interesting contrast. The FirePro M5100 has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, while the Quadro K1200 has 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. The FirePro has more raw compute units, but its lower clocks and older architecture limit their effectiveness. Both GPUs have 16 ROPs, matching pixel output capability on paper, though the Quadro's higher clocks give it a pixel rate of 16.53 GPixel/s versus the FirePro's 12.40 GPixel/s.

The Quadro's FP32 throughput of 1,057.8 GFLOPS exceeds the FirePro's 992.0 GFLOPS, despite the FirePro having more shading units. This demonstrates the efficiency of Maxwell's architecture at higher clocks. The Quadro also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12, with the Quadro at feature level 11_0 and the FirePro at 11_1. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6.

Form factors and connectivity differ as well. The Quadro K1200 is a single-slot card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, and no power connectors, requiring a 200 W suggested PSU. The FirePro M5100 is an MXM Module with MXM-A (3.0) interface, and its display outputs are portable device dependent, meaning they vary by laptop. The Quadro is designed for workstation desktops, while the FirePro targets mobile workstations.

Release dates are separated by over a year: the Quadro K1200 launched on 2015-01-27, while the FirePro M5100 arrived on 2013-10-15. The Quadro's generation is listed as "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)" despite its Maxwell architecture, which is a quirk of NVIDIA's naming scheme. The FirePro belongs to the "FirePro Mobile (Mx100)" generation.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 scores 8,831 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 29.3% higher than the AMD FirePro M5100's 6,830. The Quadro also has higher FP32 throughput at 1,057.8 GFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same modern APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro K1200 supports Vulkan 1.4 while the FirePro M5100 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro also has a recorded Vulkan benchmark score of 7,698, while the FirePro has none.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but the Quadro has double the capacity and higher effective memory speed.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 has 640 shading units and 40 TMUs, compared to the Quadro K1200's 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. However, the Quadro still achieves higher FP32 performance due to its significantly higher clock speeds (1,033 MHz boost versus 775 MHz boost).

Q: What are the physical form factor differences?

A: The Quadro K1200 is a single-slot desktop card with 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The FirePro M5100 is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) interface, designed for portable devices where display outputs are dependent on the host laptop.

Q: Which GPU was released later?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 was released on 2015-01-27, while the AMD FirePro M5100 was released on 2013-10-15. The Quadro is the newer design by over a year.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K1200 | AMD FirePro M5100 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GM107 | Venus |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 954 MHz | 725 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1,033 MHz | 775 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 72.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 640 |

| TMUs | 32 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 16.53 GPixel/s | 12.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 33.06 GTexel/s | 31.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,057.8 GFLOPS | 992.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 45 W | Not specified |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Release Date | 2015-01-27 | 2013-10-15 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | Radeon Pro Mobile |

| Average Benchmark Score | 8,265 | 6,830 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 43 | 38 |

| OpenCL Benchmark | 8,831 | 6,830 |

| Vulkan Benchmark | 7,698 | Not recorded |

The specification sheet confirms the benchmark results. The Quadro K1200 leads in clocks, memory capacity, bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, and API support for Vulkan. The FirePro M5100 counters with more shading units and TMUs, but its lower clocks and older GCN 1.0 architecture prevent it from converting that hardware advantage into superior performance. The 29.3% OpenCL gap is consistent with the full spread of recorded specifications.