AMD FirePro M5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data draws a stark, one-sided picture. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 wins the only direct head-to-head comparison in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by a margin of 66.1%. That is not a narrow victory; it is a decisive generational gap. The AMD FirePro M5100 has zero wins in the shared benchmark set, while the Quadro P2000 holds a single, dominant win. For compute-oriented workloads that stress OpenCL, the choice is unambiguous.

The AMD FirePro M5100’s only recorded benchmark score is 6,830 in Geekbench OpenCL. That places it in the 38th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (average score 6,764, 1% slower) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (average score 6,698, 2% slower). This indicates the FirePro sits in a crowded mid-low pack for its era, trading blows with entry-level discrete parts. It does not win any category outright; its value lies in its mobility form factor and its specific feature set, not in raw score supremacy.

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000, in contrast, shows a multi-faceted profile. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 20,125 is its strongest recorded compute number. It also posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 23,566, which is not directly compared to the FirePro (no Vulkan score exists for the AMD part), but it demonstrates a much broader API readiness. In the Passmark suite, the P2000 shows strengths in legacy DirectX 9 (score 124) and DirectX 11 (score 47), while its DirectX 12 score drops to 28. Its Passmark G3D score is 6,956, and its GPU compute score is 2,933. The P2000’s average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 6,049, which is lower than its OpenCL peak because the Passmark DX9 and DX12 scores (124 and 28) drag the average down. This is a classic pattern for a workstation card: massive compute headroom in some APIs, but mediocre rasterization scores in older or newer DirectX versions.

The FirePro M5100’s single recorded score of 6,830 gives it an average benchmark score of exactly 6,830, since there is no other data. That is slightly higher than the P2000’s average of 6,049, but this is misleading. The P2000’s average includes multiple DirectX tests where it scores in the dozens or hundreds, not thousands. The FirePro simply lacks those test entries. When the only directly comparable test is OpenCL, the P2000 crushes the FirePro by 66.1%. So the “win” in average score is an artifact of incomplete data, not a real performance advantage.

In terms of use-case split, the data suggests the FirePro M5100 is a legacy mobile workstation part, suited for tasks that do not demand high compute throughput and where a portable MXM module is required. The Quadro P2000 is a later, far more capable desktop workstation card, built for OpenCL compute, Vulkan workloads, and multi-display professional setups. There is no scenario in the recorded benchmarks where the FirePro wins.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras. The AMD FirePro M5100 uses the Venus chip on the GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip on the Pascal architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 16 nm process. It holds 4,400 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, with a density of 22.0 million per square millimeter. That is nearly double the density, reflecting the newer process node.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The FirePro runs at a base of 725 MHz and a boost of 775 MHz, with memory at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The P2000 runs at a base of 1076 MHz and a boost of 1480 MHz, with memory at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The P2000’s boost clock is 705 MHz higher than the FirePro’s boost, a 91% increase. Memory bandwidth follows suit: the FirePro has 72.00 GB/s across a 128-bit bus, while the P2000 has 140.2 GB/s across a 160-bit bus. That is nearly double the bandwidth.

Compute resources are also lopsided. The FirePro has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The P2000 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The P2000’s pixel rate is 59.20 GPixel/s versus the FirePro’s 12.40 GPixel/s, a 4.8x difference. Its texture rate is 94.72 GTexel/s versus 31.00 GTexel/s, a 3.1x difference. FP32 performance is 3.031 TFLOPS for the P2000 versus 992.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro, a 3.1x gap. The P2000 also has an FP16 rate of 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the FirePro has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory capacity and type differ: the FirePro has 2 GB of GDDR5, the P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5. The P2000’s bus width is 160-bit versus 128-bit. The FirePro uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface, designed for laptops and portable devices, while the P2000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and is a single-slot desktop card measuring 196 mm by 111 mm. Display outputs: the FirePro is “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning no fixed outputs, while the P2000 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The P2000 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, with no power connectors required. The FirePro’s TDP is not recorded.

API support: the FirePro lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The P2000 lists DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The P2000’s Vulkan version is newer, and its DirectX 12 feature level is higher (12_1 vs 11_1). The release dates reflect the gap: the FirePro launched on 2013-10-15, the P2000 on 2017-02-05. The FirePro’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility, successor Radeon Pro Mobile. The P2000’s predecessor is Quadro Maxwell, successor Quadro Volta.

The Verdict

Who should pick which? Strictly from the recorded data, the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the clear choice for any task that uses OpenCL compute, Vulkan rendering, or modern DirectX 12 features. Its OpenCL score is 66.1% higher than the FirePro’s. Its pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput are all multiples of the FirePro’s figures, often three to five times higher. It has more memory (5 GB vs 2 GB), more bandwidth (140.2 vs 72.00 GB/s), and a newer architecture with a higher transistor density.

The AMD FirePro M5100 is only defensible in one narrow context: if you require an MXM-A module for a portable device and cannot use a desktop PCIe card. The data shows no performance advantage for the FirePro in any recorded test. Its only score, 6,830 in OpenCL, is below the P2000’s 20,125. Its nearest rivals are all low-end parts (R7 M370, GT 1010, R5 M240), none of which are workstation-class. The FirePro’s percentile rank (38th) is slightly higher than the P2000’s (35th), but that is because the P2000’s average is dragged down by its low Passmark DX9 and DX12 scores. In real compute terms, the P2000 wins every meaningful comparison.

The verdict is simple: for any modern workstation workload, the Quadro P2000 is the superior part. The FirePro M5100 is a legacy mobile component with no recorded wins. Do not choose the FirePro unless the form factor forces it.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6,830. The P2000 leads by 66.1%.

Q: What is the memory size difference?

A: The FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro P2000 has 5 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Which card has a higher boost clock?

A: The Quadro P2000 boosts to 1480 MHz, while the FirePro M5100 boosts to 775 MHz.

Q: Does the FirePro M5100 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, it lists Vulkan 1.2.170 support. The Quadro P2000 lists Vulkan 1.4.

Q: What is the power consumption of the Quadro P2000?

A: The recorded TDP is 75 W, with a suggested PSU of 250 W and no power connectors.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, while the FirePro M5100 has 640.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head test in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6,830, and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20,125. The delta is 66.1% in favor of the P2000. That is the entire comparative dataset. No other test has been recorded for both cards. This single result is decisive: the P2000 is roughly three times faster in OpenCL compute.

Looking at the P2000’s other recorded benchmarks, its Geekbench Vulkan score of 23,566 is even higher than its OpenCL score. The FirePro has no Vulkan score, so no direct comparison exists, but the P2000’s Vulkan capability is clearly present and strong. In Passmark, the P2000’s G3D score of 6,956 and GPU compute score of 2,933 indicate solid rasterization and compute performance, though its DirectX 9 (124), DirectX 11 (47), and DirectX 12 (28) scores are low in absolute terms. These low scores are why its average benchmark score (6,049) is lower than the FirePro’s average (6,830). The FirePro has no Passmark entries, so its average is simply its OpenCL score.

The biggest win for the P2000 is the OpenCL test, where it is 66.1% ahead. The biggest win for the FirePro is, effectively, none. The FirePro’s nearest rival comparisons show it is only 1-2% faster than the R7 M370 or GT 1010, and 1.7-2.1% slower than the GTX 675M or R5 M240. That places it in a tight cluster of low-end GPUs. The P2000’s nearest rivals (MX230, RTX A400, Radeon 760M, RX 6400) all have average scores within 0.5-0.8% of the P2000’s average, meaning the P2000’s average is competitive with modern entry-level parts, despite its low DirectX-specific scores.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the AMD FirePro M5100 and the NVIDIA Quadro P2000:

• Process Node: 28 nm (AMD) vs 16 nm (NVIDIA)
• Transistors: 1,500 million vs 4,400 million
• Die Size: 123 mm² vs 200 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.2M / mm² vs 22.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: 725 MHz vs 1076 MHz
• Boost Clock: 775 MHz vs 1480 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) vs 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: 2 GB vs 5 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 160 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 72.00 GB/s vs 140.2 GB/s
• Shading Units: 640 vs 1024
• TMUs: 40 vs 64
• ROPs: 16 vs 40
• Pixel Rate: 12.40 GPixel/s vs 59.20 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 31.00 GTexel/s vs 94.72 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 992.0 GFLOPS vs 3.031 TFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: null vs 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64)
• TDP: null vs 75 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs Single-slot
• Power Connectors: null vs None
• Suggested PSU: null vs 250 W
• Bus Interface: MXM-A (3.0) vs PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs 4x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX Version: 12 (11_1) vs 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan Version: 1.2.170 vs 1.4
• Dimensions: null vs 196 mm x 111 mm
• Release Date: 2013-10-15 vs 2017-02-05
• Predecessor: FirePro Mobility vs Quadro Maxwell
• Successor: Radeon Pro Mobile vs Quadro Volta
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs Pascal
• Chip: Venus vs GP106