GPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive overall victory for the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M, which wins both head-to-head tests against the AMD FirePro W4100. The most striking result comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro M5000M scores 22,920 versus the FirePro W4100's 5,478, a 318.4% advantage. This is not a marginal lead; it represents a roughly fourfold performance gap in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL.

The Vulkan results tell a similar story, albeit with a slightly narrower margin. The Quadro M5000M posts 24,875 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the FirePro W4100 manages 6,496. The delta here is 282.9%, meaning the NVIDIA part delivers nearly four times the Vulkan performance of its AMD counterpart. Both wins are substantial enough that the overall victory tally stands at 2-0 in favor of the Quadro M5000M.

Context from the nearest-rivals data reinforces just how wide this gap is. The Quadro M5000M's average benchmark score of 6,481 places it within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile and just 0.2% behind the GeForce GT 555M. Meanwhile, the FirePro W4100's average of 5,987 sits exactly level with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M and within 0.2% of the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server. In other words, the FirePro W4100 is competing in a different performance tier entirely.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the Quadro M5000M also holds significant leads in older DirectX tests, though these are not part of the direct head-to-head comparison. Its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 119, DirectX 11 score of 54, and DirectX 10 score of 35 all indicate strong legacy API performance. The FirePro W4100 has no corresponding scores in the data pack, but the OpenCL and Vulkan results alone make the performance hierarchy unmistakable.

# Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M5000M wins in every measurable category where both products have data. Its 3.229 TFLOPS of FP32 compute throughput dwarfs the FirePro W4100's 645.1 GFLOPS, a fivefold difference in raw shader math. This translates directly into advantages for GPU-accelerated compute workloads, including OpenCL-based rendering, physics simulations, and data processing tasks that can leverage the M5000M's 1,536 shading units.

For Vulkan workloads, the M5000M's 282.9% lead suggests it handles modern graphics APIs with far greater efficiency. This matters for applications moving toward Vulkan for viewport rendering or compute, where the M5000M's architecture provides substantially more headroom. The FirePro W4100, by contrast, is better positioned for lighter-duty tasks where its 50 W TDP and compact single-slot form factor are advantages, though the data pack does not include benchmark scores to quantify this trade-off.

The FirePro W4100 does win on physical footprint and power requirements. Its 50 W TDP is exactly half the Quadro M5000M's 100 W, and it comes as a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card measuring 171 mm in length. The Quadro M5000M, as an MXM module, targets a different form factor entirely, one designed for mobile workstations rather than desktop expansion slots. The FirePro W4100 also offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the M5000M's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

In practical terms, the Quadro M5000M is the clear choice for users who need maximum compute throughput in a mobile workstation. The FirePro W4100 suits scenarios where low power draw, small physical size, and multi-display output from a desktop card take priority over raw performance.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M uses the GM204 chip built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The AMD FirePro W4100 employs the Cape Verde chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. Both share the same process node, but their underlying designs diverge sharply.

The transistor counts reveal the scale difference: the GM204 packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². The Cape Verde chip contains just 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 12.2 million per mm². The M5000M's die is more than three times larger and holds over three times as many transistors.

Memory configurations differ dramatically. The Quadro M5000M ships with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W4100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s. Clock speeds also favor the NVIDIA part: the M5000M runs at 962 MHz base and 1051 MHz boost, while the FirePro W4100's core clocks are not listed in the data pack. The M5000M's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the FirePro.

The compute resource allocation is heavily skewed toward the Quadro. The M5000M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs. The FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These translate to pixel rates of 67.26 GPixel/s and texture rates of 100.9 GTexel/s for the M5000M, versus 10.08 GPixel/s and 20.16 GTexel/s for the FirePro W4100.

API support shows the M5000M with a slight edge: it supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both are end-of-life products, but the M5000M launched on August 17, 2015, while the FirePro W4100 came a year earlier on August 12, 2014.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher FP32 compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M delivers 3.229 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is exactly five times the FirePro W4100's 645.1 GFLOPS.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The Quadro M5000M offers 160.4 GB/s from 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The FirePro W4100 provides 64.00 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro M5000M has a 100 W TDP, while the FirePro W4100 draws only 50 W. The FirePro W4100 also lists a suggested PSU of 250 W, whereas no PSU recommendation is given for the M5000M.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro M5000M averages 6,481 across all benchmarks, placing it in the 37th percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro W4100 averages 5,987, sitting in the 34th percentile.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Quadro M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What form factors do these cards use?

A: The Quadro M5000M is an MXM Module with an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface. The FirePro W4100 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card measuring 171 mm by 69 mm.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M5000M | AMD FirePro W4100 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GM204 | Cape Verde |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 962 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1051 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 8 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1536 | 512 |

| TMUs | 96 | 32 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 67.26 GPixel/s | 10.08 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 100.9 GTexel/s | 20.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 3.229 TFLOPS | 645.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Bus Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 171 mm x 69 mm |

| Release Date | 2015-08-17 | 2014-08-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler-M | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal-M | Radeon Pro Polaris |