AMD FirePro M5100 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark between these two workstation-class GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA RTX A400 scores 22,844, while the AMD FirePro M5100 scores 6,830. That translates to a 70.1% deficit for the AMD part, meaning the RTX A400 is roughly 3.3 times faster in this compute workload. The delta is so large that it is not a near-run contest; it is a generational gap expressed in raw numbers.

To contextualize the FirePro M5100's 6,830 score, the database shows it sits in the 38th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M370 at 6,764 (1% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 at 6,698 (2% slower), and the AMD Radeon R5 M240 at 6,975 (2.1% faster). The FirePro M5100 is essentially trading blows with entry-level consumer cards from a much later era, which reinforces how dated its compute performance has become.

The RTX A400, by contrast, posts an OpenCL score of 22,844, but its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 6,078. That discrepancy is worth investigating. The average is dragged down by its Passmark DirectX scores, which are remarkably low: 32 in DirectX 10, 37 in DirectX 11, 27 in DirectX 12, and 87 in DirectX 9. Its Passmark G3D score is 5,983, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 2,557. The Vulkan score, however, is 22,237, nearly matching the OpenCL result. This suggests the RTX A400 is a compute-oriented card that excels in API-agnostic workloads but struggles in legacy DirectX rasterization tests.

The RTX A400's nearest rivals in average score include the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 at 6,077 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 at 6,049 (0.5% faster), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6,117 (0.6% slower), and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6,019 (1% faster). Its 35th percentile ranking places it just below the FirePro M5100 in percentile terms, despite having a much higher peak compute score. This is a curious inversion: the RTX A400 wins the head-to-head decisively, yet its average is dragged down by inconsistent sub-tests.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only shared benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 22,844 versus the AMD FirePro M5100's 6,830, a 70.1% margin.

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

A: The FirePro M5100's 6,830 OpenCL score is 1% faster than the AMD Radeon R7 M370 (6,764), 2% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 (6,698), but 1.7% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M (6,946) and 2.1% slower than the AMD Radeon R5 M240 (6,975).

Q: What is the RTX A400's best benchmark result?

A: The RTX A400's highest recorded score is 22,844 in Geekbench OpenCL, with a nearly identical 22,237 in Geekbench Vulkan.

Q: Why is the RTX A400's average score so much lower than its OpenCL score?

A: The average of 6,078 is pulled down by very low Passmark DirectX scores: 32 in DirectX 10, 37 in DirectX 11, 27 in DirectX 12, and 87 in DirectX 9, alongside a Passmark G3D score of 5,983.

Q: What percentile does each GPU occupy?

A: The FirePro M5100 is in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the RTX A400 is in the 35th percentile, despite winning the head-to-head OpenCL test.

Q: Does the RTX A400 have any rasterization strength?

A: Its Passmark G2D score is 899, and its DirectX 9 score of 87 is its best among the DirectX tests, but all DirectX scores are far below its compute scores.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is vast, reflecting nearly eleven years of separation in release dates. The FirePro M5100 uses the Venus chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. This is an older, larger-node design that prioritized compatibility over efficiency.

The RTX A400, in contrast, uses the GA107 chip on Ampere architecture, fabricated by Samsung on an 8 nm process. It contains 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 43.5 million per square millimeter. That is more than 3.5 times the density of the FirePro M5100, which explains how NVIDIA fits far more compute hardware into a similar physical footprint.

The RTX A400 also introduces hardware features that simply did not exist in the FirePro M5100's era: 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. The FirePro M5100 has none of these. The FP16 capability also differs: the RTX A400 supports FP16 at 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio), while the FirePro M5100 has no recorded FP16 performance. The API support reflects this gulf as well. The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro M5100 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6, which is a point of parity.

The production status tells the story: the FirePro M5100 is end-of-life, while the RTX A400 is active. The FirePro M5100's predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. The RTX A400's predecessor is Quadro Turing and its successor is Workstation Ada. This is a transition across two full architectural generations, and the hardware features reflect that.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows a clear progression from the FirePro M5100 to the RTX A400. The FirePro M5100 has a base clock of 725 MHz and a boost clock of 775 MHz, while the RTX A400 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. Memory clocks differ similarly: the FirePro M5100 uses 1125 MHz with 4.5 Gbps effective, while the RTX A400 runs at 1500 MHz with 12 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration is a mixed bag. The FirePro M5100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 72.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s. So the RTX A400 has twice the capacity and 33% more bandwidth, but on a narrower bus. The RTX A400 also has more shading units (768 versus 640) but fewer texture mapping units (24 versus 40). Both have 16 ROPs.

The compute rates are not close. The FirePro M5100 produces 12.40 GPixel/s and 31.00 GTexel/s, with FP32 at 992.0 GFLOPS. The RTX A400 produces 28.19 GPixel/s and 42.29 GTexel/s, with FP32 at 2.706 TFLOPS. That is a 2.27x pixel rate advantage, a 1.36x texture rate advantage, and a 2.73x FP32 advantage for the RTX A400.

Power and physical specs differ substantially. The RTX A400 is rated at 50 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The FirePro M5100 has no TDP listed. The RTX A400 is a single-slot card with dimensions of 163 mm by 69 mm, while the FirePro M5100 is an MXM module with a bus interface of MXM-A (3.0). The RTX A400 uses PCIe 4.0 x8 and outputs 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the FirePro M5100's display outputs are portable device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The RTX A400 wins the only direct benchmark, and it wins by a massive margin. Its strengths are in compute-heavy workloads, as evidenced by its OpenCL and Vulkan scores. If the task involves general-purpose GPU compute, ray tracing, or tensor operations, the RTX A400 is the only choice between these two. Its 2.706 TFLOPS FP32 and 2.706 TFLOPS FP16 performance, combined with the 22,844 OpenCL score, indicate a card that can handle modern compute tasks with ease.

The RTX A400 also wins on memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB), bandwidth (96.00 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s), and API compatibility. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate support and Vulkan 1.4 support make it future-proof in a way the FirePro M5100 cannot match. The ray tracing and tensor cores are additional hardware capabilities with no equivalent on the AMD side.

The FirePro M5100's only advantages are in areas that do not show up in the benchmark data. It has more texture mapping units (40 versus 24), which could theoretically help in texture-heavy workloads, but its texture rate (31.00 GTexel/s) is still lower than the RTX A400's (42.29 GTexel/s). It also uses a 128-bit memory bus, which is wider than the RTX A400's 64-bit bus, but again the effective bandwidth is lower. The FirePro M5100's MXM form factor might be useful in specific embedded or laptop designs, but that is a form factor consideration, not a performance one.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA RTX A400 is the superior GPU in every measurable performance category. Its 22,844 OpenCL score versus 6,830 for the AMD FirePro M5100 is a 70.1% gap, and its FP32, memory bandwidth, and API support are all ahead. The RTX A400 is an active product with modern features like ray tracing cores, tensor cores, and DirectX 12 Ultimate. The FirePro M5100 is end-of-life, with older architecture and no ray tracing or tensor hardware.

Anyone needing compute performance, modern API support, or future compatibility should choose the RTX A400. The data shows it is not merely better, it is in a different performance class. The FirePro M5100, however, still holds a place in legacy systems. If a workstation was built around the MXM form factor and does not require modern features, the FirePro M5100's 6,830 OpenCL score is sufficient for basic 3D and compute tasks, and its 38th percentile ranking is slightly above the RTX A400's 35th percentile. But that percentile advantage is an artifact of the RTX A400's inconsistent sub-scores, not a reflection of real-world capability.

A user who prioritizes raw compute, modern APIs, and hardware-accelerated ray tracing should pick the RTX A400 without hesitation. A user maintaining an older MXM-based system with modest compute needs might stick with the FirePro M5100, but they would be accepting a 70.1% performance deficit in the only shared test. The verdict, based strictly on the recorded data, is that the RTX A400 is the recommended choice for nearly any workload, and the FirePro M5100 is only viable in legacy contexts where its form factor is required.