AMD FirePro W2100 vs AMD FirePro W5130M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparison between these two mobile workstation GPUs, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904 points against 4093 points for the AMD FirePro W2100. That is a 19.8% advantage for the W5130M, a substantial margin that places the two cards in different performance tiers despite sharing the same GCN 1.0 architecture family.

The W5130M's score of 4904 puts it in the 29th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals illustrate how tightly grouped this performance class is: the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB scores 4901, just 0.1% behind, while the AMD Radeon R7 M360 scores 4931, 0.5% ahead. The W5130M essentially trades blows with those cards, sitting in a crowded mid-range band where small percentage differences separate competitors.

The W2100's OpenCL score of 4093 places it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M at 4282 (0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon Vega 3 at 4268 (0.6% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M at 4241 (1.3% behind). The W2100 also has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4497, which is actually higher than its OpenCL result, suggesting the card handles compute workloads differently depending on the API.

The head-to-head table shows one win for the W5130M and none for the W2100. The 19.8% delta is consistent across the entire recorded benchmark suite, meaning there is no workload in the database where the W2100 closes the gap. The W5130M's average benchmark score of 4904 reflects its single OpenCL entry, while the W2100's average of 4295 is pulled up by its Vulkan result, yet even that higher average remains 12.4% below the W5130M's OpenCL score.

Where Each One Wins

The W5130M wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it does so by a wide margin. For compute-oriented workloads that rely on OpenCL, the data points clearly to the W5130M as the stronger choice. Its shading unit count of 512 versus 320, combined with higher clock speeds, explains the advantage in raw parallel throughput.

The W2100's recorded Vulkan score of 4497 deserves attention. While the database does not include a Vulkan result for the W5130M, the W2100's Vulkan performance is notably higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting that applications using Vulkan compute may extract more from this card than OpenCL benchmarks indicate. That said, without a direct Vulkan comparison, the W2100 cannot be declared a winner in any head-to-head matchup.

For everyday workstation tasks like 2D CAD viewport rendering, the W2100's DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and single-slot low-profile design make it a practical option for basic multi-monitor setups. The W5130M, however, offers higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput, which translates to better performance in any GPU-accelerated workload the database measures. The W2100's only advantage lies in its lower power draw and physical footprint, not in benchmark scores.

Architecture Differences

Both cards use GCN 1.0 architecture and are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but they are built around different chips. The W5130M uses the Tropo chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the W2100 uses the Oland chip with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical, 12.2M per mm² for the W5130M and 12.3M per mm² for the W2100, confirming that both are scaled versions of the same design philosophy.

The execution resources differ significantly. The W5130M packs 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The W2100 halves the ROP count to 8, reduces TMUs to 20, and cuts shading units to 320. These are not minor tweaks; they represent a 60% advantage in shading units for the W5130M, which directly explains its 19.8% OpenCL lead.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The W5130M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory running at 1000 MHz with a 4 Gbps effective data rate on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The W2100 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory at 900 MHz with a 1800 Mbps effective rate on the same 128-bit bus, producing only 28.80 GB/s. That is a 122% bandwidth advantage for the W5130M, a massive difference that affects any memory-bound workload.

API support is identical: both cards support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, which is expected for this generation. The architecture generation differs in naming only: the W5130M belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation, while the W2100 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation, but both trace their lineage to the same GCN 1.0 roots.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds tell a clear story. The W5130M runs at a 900 MHz base clock and 925 MHz boost, while the W2100 runs at 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost. That is a 42.9% higher base clock and a 36.0% higher boost clock for the W5130M. The memory clock follows the same pattern: 1000 MHz for the W5130M versus 900 MHz for the W2100, with effective rates of 4 Gbps and 1800 Mbps respectively.

Memory bandwidth is the most lopsided specification. The W5130M delivers 64.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s for the W2100, a 122% difference. Both cards have 2 GB of memory and a 128-bit bus, so the entire bandwidth gap comes from the memory type and clock speed. GDDR5 versus DDR3 is a generational leap that cannot be overcome with clock adjustments.

Compute throughput follows the same pattern. The W5130M achieves 947.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the W2100 manages 435.2 GFLOPS. That is a 117.6% advantage. Pixel rate is 14.80 GPixel/s for the W5130M versus 5.440 GPixel/s for the W2100, a 172% difference. Texture rate is 29.60 GTexel/s versus 13.60 GTexel/s, a 117.6% difference. Every throughput metric heavily favors the W5130M.

Physical and power specifications differ only where the database records them. The W2100 has a 26 W TDP, a single-slot form factor, no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 200 W, and dimensions of 168 mm by 69 mm. The W5130M has no recorded TDP, slot width, power connector, or dimension data. The bus interface differs: the W5130M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the W2100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are recorded only for the W2100 (2x DisplayPort 1.2), while the W5130M's outputs are not in the database.

Release timing also differs. The W5130M launched on 2015-10-01, while the W2100 launched on 2014-08-11. Both are marked end-of-life. Their predecessor and successor lineages differ as well: the W5130M follows FirePro Mobility and leads to Radeon Pro Mobile, while the W2100 follows FirePro Terascale and leads to Radeon Pro Polaris. Neither card has a recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904 in Geekbench OpenCL, 19.8% higher than the W2100's 4093. This is the only head-to-head benchmark in the database, and the W5130M wins it.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card have?

A: The W5130M has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The W2100 has 28.80 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the performance difference in shading units?

A: The W5130M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The W2100 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The W5130M has 60% more shading units.

Q: Is the W2100 more power efficient?

A: The W2100 has a recorded TDP of 26 W with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The W5130M has no TDP data in the database, so a direct efficiency comparison is not possible.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The W5130M runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. The W2100 runs at 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the AMD FirePro W5130M is the faster card in every measured category. Its 19.8% OpenCL lead over the W2100 is backed by overwhelming specification advantages: 60% more shading units, 122% more memory bandwidth, 117.6% more FP32 throughput, and 172% higher pixel rate. For any workload that stresses the GPU, the W5130M is the clear pick.

The W2100 is not without merit. Its 26 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it a low-impact card for basic workstation duties. Its Vulkan score of 4497 exceeds its OpenCL score, hinting that API choice matters for this GPU. But the database records no benchmark where the W2100 beats the W5130M, and its nearest rivals all sit within 1.3% of its average score, confirming it is a bottom-tier performer.

Buyers should choose the W5130M if they need compute performance, memory bandwidth, or any GPU-accelerated workload in the database. Buyers should choose the W2100 only if they require the lowest possible power draw, a single-slot physical profile, or a card that does not need auxiliary power connectors. The W5130M sits in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the W2100 sits in the 25th, and that four-point gap understates the real-world difference in throughput. The W5130M is the better workstation investment based on the recorded data.