AMD FirePro M5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

The AMD FirePro M5100 and NVIDIA Quadro M5000M are both end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs, but the data places them in entirely different performance tiers. The Quadro M5000M wins the only shared benchmark decisively, while the FirePro M5100 holds a slight edge in overall percentile ranking against all GPUs. The verdict is clear: the M5000M is for users needing substantial compute throughput, while the M5100 is a legacy option for basic tasks where its lower specifications are acceptable.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is the superior performer. In the sole head-to-head comparison available — Geekbench OpenCL — the M5000M scores 22,920 versus the FirePro M5100’s 6,830, a delta of -70.2% for the AMD part. This is not a marginal gap; it is a multi-generational leap in raw compute capability. The M5000M’s average benchmark score of 6,481 is slightly lower than its OpenCL result due to its inclusion of other tests, but it still aligns closely with its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (6,476) and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6,513). The FirePro M5100, with an average score of 6,830, sits within 1-2% of its closest competitors, including the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6,764) and NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6,698).

The percentile rankings tell a nuanced story. The FirePro M5100 lands in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M5000M sits at the 37th percentile. This near-tie in percentile despite the M5000M’s massive OpenCL lead suggests the M5000M’s average score is dragged down by its Passmark results, which are not available for the M5100. Therefore, the percentile field should not be read as a performance equality indicator. The verdict is that the M5000M is the only choice for compute-heavy workloads; the M5100 is a fallback for legacy systems where the M5000M is unavailable or incompatible. Neither part is recommended for modern high-end tasks, given their end-of-life status and low percentile positions.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras. The AMD FirePro M5100 is built on GCN 1.0, using the Venus chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M employs Maxwell 2.0 with the GM204 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the chip sizes diverge significantly. The M5100’s Venus die measures 123 mm² and contains 1,500 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M / mm². In contrast, the M5000M’s GM204 die is 398 mm² with 5,200 million transistors, yielding a density of 13.1M / mm². The M5000M’s larger die accommodates far more execution resources, which is the primary driver of its performance advantage.

Clock speeds also differ. The FirePro M5100 runs at a base of 725 MHz and a boost of 775 MHz, while the Quadro M5000M operates at 962 MHz base and 1,051 MHz boost. The M5000M’s higher clocks compound its architectural advantage. Memory clocks show a similar pattern: the M5100 uses 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) GDDR5, whereas the M5000M runs at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Both support DirectX 12, but the M5100 is limited to feature level 11_1, while the M5000M reaches 12_1. Vulkan support also differs, with the M5100 at version 1.2.170 and the M5000M at 1.4. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6 for both.

The transistor density figures are relatively close (12.2 vs 13.1 million per mm²), indicating that the M5000M’s advantage comes from sheer scale rather than process efficiency. The M5000M’s 5,200 million transistors are over three times the M5100’s 1,500 million, which explains the proportional increases in shading units, texture mapping units, and render output units detailed later.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. Here, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M delivers a score of 22,920, while the AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6,830. The delta percentage is -70.2%, meaning the AMD part trails by over two-thirds. This result is consistent with the specification gap: the M5000M has 1,536 shading units versus 640 on the M5100, and its FP32 throughput of 3.229 TFLOPS dwarfs the M5100’s 992.0 GFLOPS.

Examining the M5000M’s other benchmarks provides context for its average score. Its Passmark G3D score is 7,062, and its Passmark G2D is 476. The DirectX tests show scores of 119 for DX9, 54 for DX11, 35 for DX10, and 29 for DX12. The GPU compute score is 2,756, and the Vulkan score is 24,875. These varied results pull the M5000M’s average down to 6,481, which is why its percentile (37) barely differs from the M5100’s (38), despite the OpenCL blowout. The M5100 has no other benchmark entries, so its average equals its OpenCL score.

For the M5100, its nearest rival comparison shows it is 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M370 and 2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010, but 1.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M and 2.1% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M240. The M5000M’s nearest rivals are all within 1.1% of its average score, including the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (0.1% ahead) and the Intel UHD Graphics P750 (1.1% behind). This suggests that while the M5000M dominates the M5100, it is not an outlier among its own peer group in average terms.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The memory subsystem is a clear differentiator: the FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 160.4 GB/s. The M5000M’s bandwidth is more than double, and its capacity is four times larger.

Compute resources scale accordingly. The M5100 offers 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, whereas the M5000M provides 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. Pixel rate is 12.40 GPixel/s for the M5100 versus 67.26 GPixel/s for the M5000M. Texture rate is 31.00 GTexel/s versus 100.9 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 992.0 GFLOPS versus 3.229 TFLOPS. The M5000M’s TDP is listed at 100 W, while the M5100 has no TDP figure in the data.

Form factor and interfaces differ as well. Both use MXM modules, but the M5100 is an MXM-A (3.0) while the M5000M is an MXM-B (3.0). The M5000M lists no power connectors, and the M5100’s power connector field is null. Display outputs are the same: “Portable Device Dependent.” Release dates are distinct, with the M5100 launching on 2013-10-15 and the M5000M on 2015-08-17. The M5100’s predecessor is “FirePro Mobility” with a successor of “Radeon Pro Mobile,” while the M5000M’s predecessor is “Quadro Kepler-M” and its successor is “Quadro Pascal-M.” Neither has a launch MSRP in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M. Its FP32 throughput is 3.229 TFLOPS versus 992.0 GFLOPS for the AMD FirePro M5100, and it wins the Geekbench OpenCL test 22,920 to 6,830.

Q: How do their memory capacities compare?

A: The Quadro M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The M5000M’s bandwidth is 160.4 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s.

Q: Are these GPUs still relevant for modern workloads?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The FirePro M5100 sits in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, and the Quadro M5000M sits in the 37th percentile, indicating they are not top performers in the current landscape.

Q: What is the architectural difference?

A: The FirePro M5100 uses GCN 1.0 with a Venus chip, while the Quadro M5000M uses Maxwell 2.0 with a GM204 chip. Both are 28 nm parts from TSMC, but the M5000M’s die is 398 mm² versus 123 mm².

Q: Which card has better DirectX support?

A: The Quadro M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro M5100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). This means the M5000M can handle newer feature levels.

Q: How do they compare to their immediate competitors?

A: The FirePro M5100’s average score is within 2.1% of its nearest rivals, such as the AMD Radeon R5 M240. The Quadro M5000M’s average score is within 1.1% of its nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is the clear winner in any compute-oriented task. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 22,920 is 235% higher than the FirePro M5100’s 6,830. This makes it suitable for applications that leverage GPU compute, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing. Its 8 GB of memory and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth are better suited for large datasets, and its higher pixel rate (67.26 GPixel/s) and texture rate (100.9 GTexel/s) indicate stronger rasterization capability. The M5000M also has a higher boost clock (1,051 MHz vs 775 MHz) and more shading units (1,536 vs 640).

The AMD FirePro M5100 wins in exactly zero head-to-head benchmarks. Its only potential advantage is the slightly higher percentile ranking (38 vs 37), which is a statistical artifact of the M5000M’s lower average score across multiple tests. However, this does not translate into any practical performance win. The M5100’s lower TDP (no figure listed) might suggest lower power draw, but the data does not confirm this. For legacy systems that require the MXM-A form factor, the M5100 is the only option, as the M5000M uses MXM-B. Otherwise, the M5100 is not a competitive choice.

For users with a workload that is single-threaded or memory-bandwidth-bound, the M5000M still wins due to its higher clock speeds and doubled memory bus. The M5100 is only relevant for systems with strict physical or power constraints that preclude the M5000M. In summary, the M5000M wins on every measurable performance metric, and the M5100’s only claim is its distinct form factor and older architecture.