AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data offers only one direct head-to-head comparison, so the use-case split rests on that result plus the broader profile of each card. In the single shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 scores 11418 against the AMD FirePro W4300’s 11225, a 1.7% advantage. That is a narrow margin, but it is a win for NVIDIA in the only test where both cards appear.

The AMD FirePro W4300’s average benchmark score is 11225, which places it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs in the database. That is a median position, meaning half of all recorded graphics cards score lower and half score higher. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000, by contrast, has an average of 9637, which sits at the 46th percentile. The gap in percentiles is small, but it flips the story: the AMD card is slightly more consistent across its recorded benchmark, while the NVIDIA card’s average is dragged down by including additional tests. The K5000 has three recorded benchmarks: OpenCL at 11418, Vulkan at 11169, and Metal at 6324. That Metal score is far lower than the other two, which suggests the K5000 is strong in compute-oriented OpenCL and Vulkan workloads but much weaker in Metal-specific tasks. The W4300 has only one recorded benchmark, OpenCL at 11225, so its average equals that single result.

For use-case planning, the data implies the Quadro K5000 is the better choice for OpenCL compute, given its direct win, and for Vulkan workloads, where its 11169 score is close to its OpenCL result. The FirePro W4300 has no recorded Vulkan or Metal scores, so its behavior in those APIs is unknown from the database. The K5000’s weak Metal score, however, suggests Apple-centric workflows would favor the AMD card, if only because no evidence exists that the NVIDIA card performs well there. The W4300’s higher percentile (50 vs 46) also hints at better overall positioning against the full GPU field, despite losing the one direct test.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and vastly different die sizes. The AMD FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip built on GCN 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 2,080 million transistors into a 160 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 uses the GK104 chip on Kepler architecture, also TSMC 28 nm, but with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, for a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is physically larger and has 70% more transistors, but the AMD chip is denser per area.

Core counts differ substantially. The W4300 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The K5000 more than doubles those: 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Clock behavior also differs. The K5000 lists a base and boost clock of 706 MHz, while the W4300 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database. Memory clocks differ too: the W4300 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the K5000 runs at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). Despite the lower memory clock, the K5000’s 256-bit bus width gives it 172.8 GB/s bandwidth versus 96.00 GB/s for the W4300’s 128-bit bus. Both have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Interface and power architecture diverge as well. The W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the K5000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The W4300 draws 50 W with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, making it a single-slot card. The K5000 draws 122 W, requires a single 6-pin connector, suggests a 300 W PSU, and occupies a dual-slot design. Display outputs differ: the W4300 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the K5000 offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. API support is close but not identical: both support OpenGL 4.6; the W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the K5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The W4300 has no recorded predecessor or successor in the database beyond its generation, but the K5000’s predecessor is Quadro Fermi and its successor is Quadro Maxwell.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow recommendation. For OpenCL compute, the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 wins the direct test by 1.7%, and it also shows a strong Vulkan score of 11169. Anyone prioritizing those two APIs should pick the K5000. However, the K5000’s Metal score of 6324 is a severe outlier, more than 40% below its OpenCL result, which makes it a poor choice for Metal-based rendering or compute. The AMD FirePro W4300 has no recorded Metal score, but its single OpenCL result is within 1.7% of the K5000, and its 50th percentile rank is higher than the K5000’s 46th. For users who need a low-power, single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort outputs and PCIe 3.0, the W4300 is the safer pick. The K5000 offers more raw shading resources and bandwidth, but it consumes more than twice the power (122 W vs 50 W) and requires a dual-slot footprint. The verdict depends on workload: OpenCL and Vulkan lean NVIDIA, while power efficiency, percentile standing, and unknown Metal behavior lean AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 wins Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 11418 versus the AMD FirePro W4300’s 11225, a 1.7% difference.

Q: How do their overall percentile rankings compare?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 sits at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 sits at the 46th percentile.

Q: Does the K5000 perform consistently across all recorded APIs?

A: No. Its OpenCL score is 11418 and Vulkan is 11169, but Metal drops to 6324, a large gap that indicates Metal is a weak point.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each card provide?

A: The W4300 offers 96.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, while the K5000 offers 172.8 GB/s over a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the power requirement difference?

A: The W4300 has a 50 W TDP with no power connectors and a suggested 250 W PSU, while the K5000 has a 122 W TDP with one 6-pin connector and a suggested 300 W PSU.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The W4300 supports 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the K5000 supports 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 scores 11418, and the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11225. That gives the K5000 a 1.7% win, which is small enough that it could be considered a statistical tie in real-world variance, but the recorded data is unambiguous: NVIDIA wins. The K5000’s advantage likely comes from its larger shader count and higher memory bandwidth. With 1,536 shading units versus 768, and 172.8 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, the K5000 has more raw throughput potential. The W4300 counters with a higher transistor density (13.0M / mm² vs 12.0M / mm²) and a faster memory clock (6 Gbps effective vs 5.4 Gbps effective), but those advantages do not overcome the K5000’s wider bus and doubled core resources.

The W4300’s percentile position, however, tells a different story. At 50, it sits above the K5000’s 46, meaning the AMD card ranks higher against the entire GPU population despite losing the direct test. This suggests the W4300’s single OpenCL score is more representative of its class, while the K5000’s average is pulled down by its weak Metal result. If the W4300 had a recorded Metal score, it might well outperform the K5000 there, but no such data exists. The K5000’s Vulkan score of 11169 is close to its OpenCL result, so Vulkan users can expect similar performance. The W4300 has no Vulkan score, so its Vulkan behavior is unknown. In the single measurable contest, the K5000 wins by a hair, but the broader benchmark picture favors the W4300’s consistency.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The AMD FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip with GCN 2.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 uses GK104 with Kepler architecture. Both are 28 nm TSMC parts, but the transistor counts diverge sharply: 2,080 million for the W4300 versus 3,540 million for the K5000. Die size follows the same pattern, 160 mm² versus 294 mm², with the W4300 having a higher density at 13.0M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm². Clock speeds: the W4300 has no recorded base or boost clock, while the K5000 lists both at 706 MHz. Memory clocks: the W4300 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), the K5000 at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). Memory bus width: 128 bit versus 256 bit. Bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s versus 172.8 GB/s. Shading units: 768 versus 1,536. TMUs: 48 versus 128. ROPs: 16 versus 32.

Pixel and texture rates also differ: the W4300 delivers 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s, while the K5000 delivers 22.59 GPixel/s and 90.37 GTexel/s. FP32 compute: the W4300 reaches 1,428.5 GFLOPS, while the K5000 reaches 2.169 TFLOPS. Power draw: 50 W versus 122 W. Slot width: single-slot versus dual-slot. Power connectors: none versus one 6-pin. Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 300 W. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 versus 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. API support: DirectX 12 (12_0) versus DirectX 12 (11_0), both OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170 versus 1.2.175. Physical dimensions: the W4300 is 171 mm long and 69 mm tall, while the K5000 is 267 mm long and 111 mm tall. Release dates differ by over three years: the W4300 launched in November 2015, the K5000 in August 2012. The K5000 has a recorded launch MSRP of 2,499 USD, while the W4300 has none.