AMD FirePro M5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The AMD FirePro M5100 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 are both end-of-life workstation graphics solutions, but they belong to very different product philosophies. The FirePro M5100 is a mobile MXM module built for laptops, while the Quadro K4000 is a desktop single-slot card. Despite their different physical formats, the database places them in direct competition based on their average benchmark scores. The FirePro M5100 records an average benchmark score of 6830, while the Quadro K4000 averages 5982. That is a 14.2% gap in favor of the AMD part, but the head-to-head comparison is far closer.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark shared between the two GPUs in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6830, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 6816. The FirePro M5100 wins by a margin of 0.2%, which is essentially a statistical tie. A 14-point difference out of nearly 7000 points is within run-to-run variance for any OpenCL workload. The recorded data indicates the AMD part takes the win, but this is not a decisive victory.

When looking at the broader benchmark picture, the FirePro M5100 has only that single OpenCL entry, so its average score is identical to its OpenCL score. The Quadro K4000, however, has three recorded benchmarks: Geekbench Metal at 4166, Geekbench OpenCL at 6816, and Geekbench Vulkan at 6964. The Vulkan score is the highest of the three, exceeding the OpenCL result by 148 points. The Metal score is much lower, which drags the Quadro K4000’s average down to 5982. This means the FirePro M5100’s average is pulled up by having only one test, while the Quadro K4000’s average suffers from the weak Metal result.

The percentile ranks reflect this split. The FirePro M5100 sits at the 38th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K4000 sits at the 34th percentile. The 4-percentage-point difference is modest, but it aligns with the average score gap. In direct OpenCL competition, the two are nearly inseparable, but the Quadro K4000 shows a clear advantage in Vulkan, scoring 6964 versus the FirePro M5100’s 6830 in OpenCL. That is a 2% advantage for the NVIDIA part in Vulkan, though these are different API tests.

The nearest rivals in the database reinforce the positioning. For the FirePro M5100, the closest competitors are the AMD Radeon R7 M370 with an average score of 6764, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M at 6946, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 at 6698, and the AMD Radeon R5 M240 at 6975. The FirePro M5100 is 1% ahead of the R7 M370, 2% ahead of the GT 1010, but 1.7% behind the GTX 675M and 2.1% behind the R5 M240. For the Quadro K4000, the nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5986, the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5987, the AMD Radeon HD 8750M at 5970, and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996. The Quadro K4000 is 0.1% behind the K4000M, 0.1% behind the W4100, 0.2% ahead of the HD 8750M, and 0.2% behind the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server. These deltas are all under a percent, meaning the Quadro K4000 sits in an extremely tight cluster of mid-range GPUs.

The Verdict

From the data, the FirePro M5100 is the better overall performer when using the average benchmark score as the metric. It leads by 848 points, which is a 14.2% advantage. However, this lead is almost entirely due to the Quadro K4000’s low Metal score. In the shared OpenCL test, the FirePro M5100 wins by only 0.2%, which is negligible. The Quadro K4000 counters with a Vulkan score that is 2% higher than the FirePro M5100’s OpenCL score, though that is not a direct comparison.

For users prioritizing OpenCL compute, the two cards are effectively equal. The FirePro M5100 edges out the Quadro K4000 by 14 points, but that falls within normal variation. For users who need Vulkan support, the Quadro K4000 is the better choice, as its Vulkan score of 6964 is the highest recorded number for either GPU. For users who rely on Metal, the Quadro K4000 is clearly weaker, with a Metal score of 4166, which is 38.9% below its own OpenCL result.

The percentile data suggests the FirePro M5100 is the safer pick for general workstation tasks, as it sits at the 38th percentile versus the Quadro K4000’s 34th. But the gap is small, and the NVIDIA part offers a better Vulkan path. The verdict depends on the API workload. For OpenCL, choose either. For Vulkan, choose the Quadro K4000. For Metal, the FirePro M5100 has no recorded Metal score, so the Quadro K4000’s weak Metal showing is the only data point.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The FirePro M5100 uses the Venus chip based on GCN 1.0, while the Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip based on Kepler. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge significantly. The Venus chip packs 1,500 million transistors onto a die size of 123 mm², giving a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The GK106 chip has 2,540 million transistors on a larger 221 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 11.5 million per mm². The higher density on the AMD side indicates a more compact design, while the NVIDIA chip uses more silicon for its compute resources.

The memory architecture also differs. The FirePro M5100 uses a 128-bit memory bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro K4000 uses a wider 192-bit bus with 3 GB of GDDR5. The Quadro K4000’s memory bandwidth is 134.8 GB/s, which is 87.2% higher than the FirePro M5100’s 72.00 GB/s. This bandwidth advantage is significant for texture-heavy workloads and large datasets. The FirePro M5100’s memory clock is 1125 MHz, translating to 4.5 Gbps effective, while the Quadro K4000’s memory clock is 1404 MHz, or 5.6 Gbps effective. The Quadro K4000 also has more memory capacity, which is useful for rendering scenes that exceed 2 GB.

The compute resources favor the Quadro K4000 in raw numbers. It has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs, compared to the FirePro M5100’s 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This translates to a pixel rate of 12.96 GPixel/s for the Quadro K4000 versus 12.40 GPixel/s for the FirePro M5100, a small 4.5% advantage. The texture rate is more decisive: the Quadro K4000 achieves 51.84 GTexel/s, which is 67.2% higher than the FirePro M5100’s 31.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute also favors NVIDIA, with 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS, a 25.4% lead.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is the form factor. The FirePro M5100 is an MXM module with an MXM-A (3.0) interface, designed for laptops and mobile workstations. The Quadro K4000 is a single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, measuring 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The FirePro M5100 has no fixed dimensions in the database, as its size depends on the host device.

Power consumption is only recorded for the Quadro K4000, which has a TDP of 80 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The FirePro M5100 has no TDP listed, but as a mobile module, it is expected to draw less power, though that is not quantified here. The Quadro K4000 also has explicit display outputs (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2), while the FirePro M5100’s outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

In terms of API support, the FirePro M5100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Vulkan version is slightly newer on the NVIDIA side, and the DirectX feature level is lower (11_0 versus 11_1). The release dates differ by about eight months, with the Quadro K4000 launching on 2013-02-28 and the FirePro M5100 on 2013-10-15. The Quadro K4000 has a recorded launch MSRP of 1,269 USD, while the FirePro M5100 has none.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 has an average score of 6830, which is 14.2% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K4000’s average of 5982.

Q: How do the two compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The FirePro M5100 scores 6830 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the Quadro K4000 scores 6816. The FirePro M5100 wins by 0.2%, which is effectively a tie.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000 have any benchmark where it clearly wins?

A: The Quadro K4000 records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6964, which is higher than any score recorded for the FirePro M5100. The FirePro M5100 has no Vulkan benchmark in the database.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the Quadro K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus. The Quadro K4000 also has higher bandwidth at 134.8 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, while the FirePro M5100 has 640. The Quadro K4000 also has more texture units (64 versus 40) and ROPs (24 versus 16).

Q: Are they from the same architectural generation?

A: No. The FirePro M5100 uses GCN 1.0 architecture with the Venus chip, while the Quadro K4000 uses Kepler architecture with the GK106 chip. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro M5100 wins in the only direct head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, by a 0.2% margin. It also wins in the overall average score, beating the Quadro K4000 by 848 points. Its higher percentile rank (38th versus 34th) suggests it performs better across the database’s full GPU spectrum. The FirePro M5100 also has a smaller die size (123 mm² versus 221 mm²) and higher transistor density, which may indicate better power efficiency, though TDP is not recorded for it.

The Quadro K4000 wins in raw compute resources. It has 128 more shading units, 24 more TMUs, and 8 more ROPs than the FirePro M5100. Its FP32 performance is 25.4% higher, and its texture rate is 67.2% higher. The memory bandwidth advantage is substantial: 134.8 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s, which is an 87.2% difference. This makes the Quadro K4000 better suited for tasks that are memory-bound, such as high-resolution texturing or large framebuffer operations. The Quadro K4000 also has a higher recorded Vulkan score, making it the better choice for Vulkan-based applications.

For mobile workstation users, the FirePro M5100 is the only viable option because it is an MXM module. The Quadro K4000 is a desktop card with fixed dimensions and a PCIe interface. For desktop users who need a single-slot card with a 6-pin power connector, the Quadro K4000 is the correct choice. The FirePro M5100’s display outputs are device-dependent, while the Quadro K4000 offers fixed DVI and DisplayPort connections.

In terms of API support, the FirePro M5100 has a higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0), which may matter for certain legacy applications. The Quadro K4000 has a slightly newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 versus 1.2.170), though the practical difference is minimal. The Quadro K4000 also has a Metal benchmark score, which the FirePro M5100 lacks, but that score is notably low at 4166.

The choice between these two GPUs comes down to the workload and platform. For OpenCL compute in a mobile chassis, the FirePro M5100 is the winner, albeit by a narrow margin. For Vulkan rendering on a desktop, the Quadro K4000 takes the lead. For memory-intensive tasks, the Quadro K4000’s higher bandwidth and capacity give it an edge. The data does not support a universal winner; it supports a scenario-dependent decision.