AMD FirePro M5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark comparison between the AMD FirePro M5100 and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the AMD part takes a decisive win. The FirePro M5100 scores 6830, while the Quadro K4000M scores 5986, giving AMD a 14.1% advantage. That is a substantial gap in a compute-oriented workload, and it positions the FirePro M5100 clearly ahead in raw OpenCL throughput.

Looking at the wider database, the FirePro M5100 sits at the 38th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro K4000M lands at the 34th percentile. The difference in percentile ranking reflects the 14.1% score gap, but the nearest rival comparisons add context. The FirePro M5100 is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M370, which averages 6764, a delta of only 1%. It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 by 2% (6698) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M by 1.7% (6946). The Quadro K4000M, on the other hand, is essentially dead even with the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987, 0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, 0.1% delta), and sits slightly behind the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996, -0.2%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000, -0.2%). This means the Quadro K4000M is clustered in a tight band of mid-range mobile GPUs, while the FirePro M5100 is punching slightly above that cluster.

In terms of raw compute numbers from the specification sheet, the FirePro M5100 produces 992.0 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the Quadro K4000M delivers 1,153.9 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA part has a theoretical FP32 advantage of roughly 16%, yet the OpenCL benchmark tells the opposite story. That is a notable inversion: the Quadro K4000M has more shading units (960 vs 640), more texture mapping units (80 vs 40), and more render output units (32 vs 16), but the FirePro M5100 still wins the recorded workload. The FirePro M5100 also has a higher pixel rate at 12.40 GPixel/s versus 12.02 GPixel/s, and a higher base clock at 725 MHz versus 601 MHz, which likely helps in latency-sensitive OpenCL tasks. The texture rate favors NVIDIA heavily, 48.08 GTexel/s versus 31.00 GTexel/s, but that does not translate into a benchmark win here.

Memory bandwidth is another split. The Quadro K4000M has 89.60 GB/s across a 256-bit bus, while the FirePro M5100 has 72.00 GB/s across a 128-bit bus. That is a 24% bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA, yet the FirePro M5100 still wins the compute benchmark. The lesson from the recorded data is that theoretical specs do not always predict real-world OpenCL performance, especially when comparing architectures with different scheduling and compiler behavior.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the AMD FirePro M5100 is the stronger choice for OpenCL compute workloads. It beats the Quadro K4000M by 14.1% in the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, and it sits at a higher percentile rank (38th vs 34th) among all GPUs. If your work is centered on OpenCL acceleration, the FirePro M5100 is the clear pick.

The Quadro K4000M does have advantages that are not reflected in the benchmark score. It offers 4 GB of VRAM versus 2 GB, a 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit, and higher memory bandwidth (89.60 GB/s vs 72.00 GB/s). For workloads that are memory-capacity bound, such as holding larger datasets in VRAM, the Quadro K4000M may be more practical despite losing the compute benchmark. It also has a higher FP32 theoretical peak (1,153.9 GFLOPS), though that does not materialize in the recorded OpenCL test.

The Quadro K4000M has a TDP of 100 W, while the FirePro M5100 has no TDP listed in the database. That makes direct power comparison impossible, but the presence of a TDP figure for NVIDIA suggests it is a power-constrained part. If you need a mobile workstation GPU for compute and the benchmark is representative of your workload, the FirePro M5100 is the winner. If you need more VRAM for large models or textures, the Quadro K4000M has the edge despite slower compute.

Neither GPU is a current product; both are marked end-of-life. The FirePro M5100 was released in October 2013, while the Quadro K4000M came earlier, in May 2012. The FirePro M5100 has a newer release date, but both are legacy parts in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only recorded benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro M5100 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 6830 versus 5986 for the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, a 14.1% difference.

Q: How does the FirePro M5100 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 1% faster than the AMD Radeon R7 M370, 2% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010, and 1.7% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M. It also beats the AMD Radeon R5 M240 by 2.1%.

Q: How does the Quadro K4000M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is exactly tied with the AMD FirePro W4100 (0% delta), 0.1% faster than the NVIDIA Quadro K4000, and 0.2% slower than both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000M have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the Quadro K4000M has 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth across a 256-bit bus, while the FirePro M5100 has 72.00 GB/s across a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the Quadro K4000M have a higher FP32 compute peak?

A: Yes, the Quadro K4000M is rated at 1,153.9 GFLOPS, while the FirePro M5100 is rated at 992.0 GFLOPS, yet the FirePro M5100 wins the OpenCL benchmark.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference?

A: The Quadro K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification. The AMD FirePro M5100 uses 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The NVIDIA part has 50% more shading units, double the TMUs, and double the ROPs.

Clock speeds also differ. The FirePro M5100 runs at 725 MHz base and 775 MHz boost, while the Quadro K4000M runs at a flat 601 MHz for both base and boost. The FirePro M5100 has a 124 MHz base clock advantage and a 174 MHz boost advantage. Memory clocks are likewise different: the FirePro M5100 uses 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), while the Quadro K4000M uses 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). Despite the lower memory clock, the Quadro K4000M achieves higher total bandwidth due to its wider bus.

Memory capacity and bus width are major separators. The FirePro M5100 has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, giving 72.00 GB/s. The Quadro K4000M has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, giving 89.60 GB/s. The Quadro K4000M has double the VRAM, double the bus width, and 24% more bandwidth.

Pixel and texture rates also diverge. The FirePro M5100 has a pixel rate of 12.40 GPixel/s, slightly ahead of the Quadro K4000M's 12.02 GPixel/s. But the Quadro K4000M has a texture rate of 48.08 GTexel/s, well ahead of the FirePro M5100's 31.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute figures are also different: 992.0 GFLOPS for AMD, 1,153.9 GFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Interface and form factor show differences too. The FirePro M5100 uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the Quadro K4000M uses MXM-B (3.0). Both are MXM modules, but the different form factor sizes may matter for physical compatibility. The Quadro K4000M lists a TDP of 100 W and has no power connectors listed, while the FirePro M5100 has no TDP listed at all.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro M5100 is built on the Venus chip using GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm TSMC process. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. It contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, for a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA die is more than double the size, with more than double the transistor count, but the transistor density is nearly identical.

The FirePro M5100 belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation, while the Quadro K4000M belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation. The FirePro M5100 has a release date of October 2013, while the Quadro K4000M came out in May 2012. Both are end-of-life products, and both use GDDR5 memory.

API support differs slightly. The FirePro M5100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The DirectX feature level is slightly higher on the AMD part (11_1 vs 11_0), while the Vulkan version is marginally newer on the NVIDIA part.

Memory architecture differences are significant. The FirePro M5100 has a 128-bit memory bus, while the Quadro K4000M has a 256-bit bus. The FirePro M5100 uses 4.5 Gbps effective memory speed, while the Quadro K4000M uses 2.8 Gbps. The combination of bus width and speed results in the Quadro K4000M having higher total bandwidth.

Both GPUs have no ray tracing cores, no tensor cores, and no FP16 support listed in the database. They are both raster-focused compute GPUs from the early-to-mid 2010s, with the FirePro M5100 being the newer design.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M5100 wins the only recorded benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 14.1% margin. That makes it the better choice for OpenCL compute workloads, such as general-purpose GPU programming, physics simulation, or any task that leverages the OpenCL API. The higher boost clock (775 MHz vs 601 MHz) and slightly higher pixel rate (12.40 GPixel/s vs 12.02 GPixel/s) likely contribute to this advantage. The FirePro M5100 also has a higher percentile rank (38th vs 34th), indicating it sits above the Quadro K4000M in the overall GPU performance distribution.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M wins on memory-centric specifications. It has 4 GB of VRAM versus 2 GB, a 256-bit bus versus 128-bit, and 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth versus 72.00 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-capacity bound, such as rendering large scenes, holding large textures, or working with bigger datasets in GPU memory, the Quadro K4000M offers more headroom. It also has a higher FP32 theoretical peak (1,153.9 GFLOPS), which might benefit applications that are tuned specifically for NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, though the recorded OpenCL benchmark does not reflect that.

The Quadro K4000M also has a higher texture rate (48.08 GTexel/s vs 31.00 GTexel/s), which could matter for texture-heavy workloads like certain types of rendering or image processing. However, the benchmark data does not include any texture-related tests, so this remains a theoretical advantage.

In practical terms, the FirePro M5100 is the better pick if your primary workload is OpenCL compute and you do not need large VRAM. The Quadro K4000M is the better pick if you need more memory capacity or bandwidth, even though it loses the compute benchmark. Both are end-of-life mobile workstation parts, so availability and driver support should be checked before purchase. The data does not show any other benchmark categories, so the verdict stands solely on the Geekbench OpenCL result.