AMD FirePro M5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct head-to-head benchmark between these two mobile workstation GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scored 9,149 points, while the AMD FirePro M5100 scored 6,830 points. That is a 34% advantage for the NVIDIA part, a substantial margin in a compute-oriented workload.

The Quadro K4100M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 6,662, though the FirePro M5100 has no Metal result in the database, so no direct comparison is possible there. Looking at the overall average benchmark score, the Quadro K4100M sits at 7,906, while the FirePro M5100 averages 6,830. That gap of roughly 1,076 points, or about 15.8%, reflects the same general performance hierarchy seen in the OpenCL test.

Context from the nearest rivals helps interpret these numbers. The Quadro K4100M's average score places it just 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 (7,925), 1.7% behind the Quadro P5000 (8,039), and 1.8% behind the GTX 650 Ti (8,053). It is effectively in the same performance band as those desktop parts, which is notable for a mobile GPU from the same era. The FirePro M5100, by contrast, sits 1% ahead of the Radeon R7 M370 (6,764), 2% ahead of the GeForce GT 1010 (6,698), but 1.7% behind the GeForce GTX 675M (6,946) and 2.1% behind the Radeon R5 M240 (6,975). The FirePro's position among its rivals is more mixed, hovering near the middle of a cluster of older mobile and low-end desktop parts.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split. The Quadro K4100M is in the 41st percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro M5100 is in the 38th. A three-percentile gap is modest, but it aligns with the consistent lead the NVIDIA card shows in the compute tests. The database records one win for the Quadro K4100M and zero wins for the FirePro M5100 in head-to-head testing. No benchmark in the available data favors the AMD part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute work, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 9,149 points to 6,830 points for the AMD FirePro M5100 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 34% lead for the NVIDIA card.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its closest rivals?

A: The Quadro K4100M averages 7,906 points, nearly matching the GeForce GTX 460 (7,925, 0.2% behind) and sitting 1.7% behind the Quadro P5000 and GTX 880M. The FirePro M5100 averages 6,830 points, 1% ahead of the Radeon R7 M370 and 2% ahead of the GeForce GT 1010, but 1.7% behind the GeForce GTX 675M.

Q: Does the FirePro M5100 win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The head-to-head data records zero wins for the FirePro M5100; the only comparative test, Geekbench OpenCL, goes to the Quadro K4100M.

Q: Do both cards support modern graphics APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K4100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the FirePro M5100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The AMD card lists DirectX 12 (11_1), while the NVIDIA card lists DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: How do their overall database percentiles compare?

A: The Quadro K4100M ranks in the 41st percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M5100 ranks in the 38th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The data supports a clear split in use cases, though it is one-sided in terms of raw performance. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M wins in every measurable compute scenario. Its 34% OpenCL lead over the FirePro M5100 means that any workload relying heavily on general-purpose compute, rendering, simulation acceleration, or physics simulation, will favor the NVIDIA card substantially. The Quadro K4100M's Metal score of 6,000+ points, while not comparable to the FirePro, at least demonstrates that the GPU can handle Apple's Metal API and that the architecture has compute pathways beyond OpenCL. For mobile workstations used in DCC (digital content creation) tasks that mix viewport rendering and compute acceleration, the Quadro K4100M is the stronger choice.

The AMD FirePro M5100 has no wins in the database, so there is no benchmark evidence that it excels in any specific workload category. However, its nearest rival data does not indicate it is broken. The FirePro M5100's average score of 6,830 points is only slightly behind the GeForce GTX 675M (1.7%) and ahead of the Radeon R5 M240 (2.1%), meaning it is within striking distance of those parts. For a user whose primary task is pure 3D rendering through a single API, the FirePro M5100 could still be a competent performer, but the recorded data simply does not give it a single head-to-head win. The 2 GB memory and 128-bit bus, while smaller, are not inherently disqualifying for lighter workloads, but they do not compensate for the compute deficit.

If one strictly follows the benchmark results, the "where each one wins" section is short. The Quadro K4100M wins the only head-to-head test. The FirePro M5100 wins nowhere in the recorded data. The practical takeaway is that for any task where the benchmark scores are predictive, the Quadro K4100M is the pick. The FirePro M5100 might still be chosen for a system that requires its specific MXM-A form factor or for compatibility reasons, but its performance profile is lower across the board.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M uses the GK104 chip on a 28 nm process with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The AMD FirePro M5100 uses the Venus chip, also on 28 nm, but with just 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical (12.0M per mm² for NVIDIA, 12.2M per mm² for AMD), showing that the process node efficiency is similar; the difference is sheer chip size.

Clock speeds differ slightly. The Quadro K4100M runs at 706 MHz base and boost, with memory at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The FirePro M5100 runs at 725 MHz base and 775 MHz boost, with memory at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). So the AMD chip has higher clocks, but the NVIDIA chip has far more execution resources.

Memory is a major divergence. The Quadro K4100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 72.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has double the memory size and roughly 42% more bandwidth.

The compute units also differ. The Quadro K4100M has 1,152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro M5100 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 16.94 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card versus 12.40 GPixel/s for the AMD card. Texture rate is 67.78 GTexel/s versus 31.00 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput is 1.627 TFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS. The Quadro K4100M leads in every throughput metric.

The bus interface differs: the Quadro K4100M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the FirePro M5100 uses MXM-A (3.0). Both are MXM modules, but the different keying means they are not interchangeable in the same laptop. The Quadro K4100M has no power connectors listed, while the FirePro M5100 lists none as well. The Quadro K4100M has a TDP of 100 W, while the FirePro M5100 has no TDP listed in the database.

Display outputs are identical in that both are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." Neither has a specified length, height, or width in the records. The Quadro K4100M has a launch MSRP of 1,499 USD, while the FirePro M5100 has no launch MSRP in the database.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is fundamental. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK104 chip. Kepler was designed for high throughput per watt, with a large number of CUDA cores arranged in SMX units. The 1,152 shading units and 96 TMUs reflect Kepler's emphasis on massive parallel execution. Kepler also introduced a unified memory hierarchy and stronger geometry processing compared to prior Fermi-based professional GPUs.

The AMD FirePro M5100 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, specifically the Venus chip, codename Venus. GCN 1.0 was AMD's first implementation of Graphics Core Next, which focused on a scalar architecture designed to handle both graphics and compute with a unified shader core. GCN 1.0 emphasized asynchronous compute and improved memory access patterns, but the FirePro M5100 uses a smaller implementation with 640 shading units and 40 TMUs. The GCN architecture's transistor density is slightly higher (12.2M per mm²) than Kepler (12.0M per mm²), but the chip is much smaller.

The memory subsystems differ architecturally as well. The Quadro K4100M uses a 256-bit memory controller, while the FirePro M5100 uses a 128-bit controller. This affects not just bandwidth but also the efficiency of memory access under heavy load. The Quadro K4100M's 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is more than 40% higher, which matters for large textures and compute workloads that stream data.

Both cards are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the transistor counts differ dramatically: 3,540 million for NVIDIA versus 1,500 million for AMD. The NVIDIA chip is about 2.4 times larger in die area. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as those features came later. The Quadro K4100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the FirePro M5100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, a minor difference. Both support OpenGL 4.6, and both support DirectX 12, though with different minor versions.

The generation labels reflect their market positioning: the Quadro K4100M is part of the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation, while the FirePro M5100 is part of the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation. The AMD card's predecessor is listed as "FirePro Mobility" and its successor as "Radeon Pro Mobile," while the NVIDIA card's predecessor is "Quadro Fermi-M" and successor is "Quadro Maxwell-M." Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M outperforms the AMD FirePro M5100 in the only direct benchmark recorded, and it does so by a wide margin. The 34% OpenCL lead is not a small edge; it is a decisive gap that will translate into visibly faster compute workloads. The Quadro K4100M also has a higher average benchmark score (7,906 vs 6,830) and a higher percentile rank (41st vs 38th).

The Quadro K4100M is the better choice for any user whose work is compute-heavy: rendering, simulation, scientific computing, or GPU-accelerated analytics. Its 4 GB of memory and 102.4 GB/s bandwidth give it a substantial advantage in memory-bound tasks, and its 1.627 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput is nearly 64% higher than the FirePro M5100's 992.0 GFLOPS. The higher pixel rate (16.94 vs 12.40 GPixel/s) and texture rate (67.78 vs 31.00 GTexel/s) also indicate better rasterization performance, though no direct gaming or viewport benchmark is recorded.

The FirePro M5100 is not without merit in a narrow sense. It is a smaller chip, draws less power (no TDP listed, but the architecture and die size suggest a lower envelope), and has higher clock speeds (725/775 MHz vs 706 MHz). It also uses the MXM-A form factor, which differs from the Quadro's MXM-B. If a laptop design specifically requires MXM-A, the FirePro M5100 is the only option between these two. But the performance data does not favor it in any tested scenario.

For a mobile workstation user, the choice comes down to what the hardware must accomplish. If raw compute performance and memory capacity are the priorities, the Quadro K4100M is the clear winner. If a system requires the MXM-A interface or the user prioritizes lower power draw (assuming the smaller die translates to that, though no TDP is recorded), the FirePro M5100 could be acceptable for lighter tasks. But the benchmark evidence is one-sided: the Quadro K4100M wins the head-to-head, wins in average score, and wins in every throughput metric. The verdict is that the Quadro K4100M is the superior part in performance terms, and the FirePro M5100 is only preferable in scenarios where its smaller footprint or specific bus interface is a hard requirement. The recorded data does not support choosing the FirePro M5100 for performance reasons.