AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4300 and NVIDIA Quadro K5100M are both end-of-life professional workstation GPUs, but they target very different physical environments. The data shows a clear split: the FirePro W4300 is a single-slot, low-power desktop card, while the K5100M is an MXM module for mobile workstations. Their benchmark scores are remarkably close in the single available OpenCL test, yet the architectural and specification gaps are significant.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a narrow victory for the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M in raw compute. In the only head-to-head comparison available (Geekbench OpenCL), the K5100M scores 11,771 against the FirePro W4300’s 11,225, a 4.6% advantage. This aligns with the K5100M’s higher average benchmark score of 10,043 across two tests, compared to the W4300’s 11,225 from a single test. However, the context matters: the K5100M’s average is dragged down by its Metal score of 8,315, which is not applicable to the AMD card.

The FirePro W4300 holds a slight edge in overall percentile ranking, sitting at the 50th percentile of all GPUs, while the K5100M sits at the 48th. This suggests that while the NVIDIA card wins the direct OpenCL comparison, the AMD card is marginally better positioned relative to the broader GPU landscape. The W4300 also draws half the power (50W vs 100W) and is a single-slot solution, making it the logical choice for compact, power-constrained desktop workstations. The K5100M, with its MXM form factor, is the only option for laptop-based professional workflows, despite its higher power draw.

For buyers, the choice is dictated by form factor first, performance second. If the system requires a mobile GPU, the K5100M is the only viable option. If a desktop is the target, the W4300 offers comparable OpenCL performance with far lower power consumption and a smaller physical footprint. The 4.6% performance delta in favor of NVIDIA is real but modest; the data does not indicate a decisive compute advantage for either card.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins the only direct benchmark contest. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 11,771 surpasses the W4300’s 11,225, and it also has a separate Metal benchmark score of 8,315, indicating it is tested across multiple compute APIs. The K5100M’s 8 GB of memory is double the W4300’s 4 GB, which could benefit workloads with larger datasets, though the benchmark data does not explicitly test this. Its 256-bit memory bus provides 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth, a 20% improvement over the W4300’s 96.00 GB/s.

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins on efficiency and physical design. Its 50W TDP is exactly half of the K5100M’s 100W, and it requires no external power connectors, while the K5100M also lists none but draws more power. The W4300’s single-slot design and 171 mm length make it suitable for small chassis, whereas the K5100M is a portable device-dependent MXM module with no fixed dimensions. The W4300 also supports four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs for multi-monitor setups, while the K5100M’s display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they rely on the host laptop.

The AMD card also wins on API feature level for DirectX, supporting 12_0 versus the K5100M’s 11_0, although both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan (1.2.170 vs 1.2.175). For compute tasks, the W4300’s higher transistor density (13.0M / mm² vs 12.0M / mm²) on the same 28nm TSMC process suggests a more efficient design, even though the K5100M has a larger die and more transistors overall.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The AMD FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip based on GCN 2.0, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler. Both are manufactured on the same 28nm process at TSMC, but they diverge in complexity. The K5100M’s GK104 die measures 294 mm² and contains 3,540 million transistors, while the W4300’s Bonaire die is much smaller at 160 mm² with 2,080 million transistors.

The compute resource allocation is starkly different. The K5100M packs 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, compared to the W4300’s 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the NVIDIA card a 2x advantage in shading units and a 2.67x advantage in TMUs. However, the W4300 compensates with much higher clock speeds on its memory (1500 MHz vs 900 MHz, or 6 Gbps vs 3.6 Gbps effective), though the K5100M’s wider 256-bit bus still yields higher bandwidth.

The W4300 achieves a higher transistor density of 13.0M / mm² versus the K5100M’s 12.0M / mm², indicating a more compact layout. Its fp32 compute is rated at 1,428.5 GFLOPS, while the K5100M is rated at 2.369 TFLOPS, a 66% higher peak. Pixel rate also favors NVIDIA at 24.67 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s, and texture rate at 98.69 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s. The K5100M’s base and boost clocks are both locked at 771 MHz, while the W4300 does not list a base or boost clock, suggesting a different power management approach.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scores 11,771 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 4.6% higher than the AMD FirePro W4300’s 11,225.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the W4300 has 4 GB. The K5100M also has a wider 256-bit bus versus 128-bit, resulting in 115.2 GB/s bandwidth against 96.00 GB/s.

Q: How does power consumption compare?

A: The FirePro W4300 has a 50W TDP, exactly half of the K5100M’s 100W. The W4300 also suggests a 250W power supply, while the K5100M does not specify one.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life. The W4300 was released later, on 2015-11-30, while the K5100M was released on 2013-07-22.

Q: Can the K5100M be used in a desktop tower?

A: The K5100M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface and is an MXM Module form factor, making it dependent on a portable device. The W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and is a single-slot card.

Q: Which GPU supports newer DirectX features?

A: The W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the K5100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the K5100M has a slightly newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 vs 1.2.170).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the data shows a clear winner. The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M achieves a score of 11,771, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225. The delta is -4.6% from the perspective of the AMD card, meaning the K5100M outperforms it by that margin. This is a modest but consistent lead in a widely-used compute benchmark.

Looking at broader benchmark context, the K5100M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 8,315, which is not available for the W4300. This Metal score is significantly lower than its OpenCL score, which suggests the K5100M’s performance varies by API. The W4300’s single benchmark score of 11,225 sits close to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, which scores 11,228 (a 0% delta). The K5100M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R9 M375 at 10,070, a -0.3% delta, indicating the K5100M is slightly ahead of that card.

The W4300’s nearest rivals also include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M at 11,261 (-0.3% delta) and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q at 11,088 (1.2% delta). This shows the W4300 is competitive with a range of GPUs across generations. The K5100M’s rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M at 10,013 (0.3% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 at 9,846 (2% delta), indicating it sits slightly above those in average score.

The K5100M’s average benchmark score of 10,043 is lower than its OpenCL score due to the inclusion of the Metal test. The W4300’s average is identical to its OpenCL score at 11,225. This means that in a mixed-API workload, the W4300 would likely come out ahead, but for pure OpenCL, the K5100M wins.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification field. The most pronounced differences are in memory capacity (8 GB vs 4 GB), shading units (1,536 vs 768), and power draw (100W vs 50W). The K5100M has a larger die (294 mm² vs 160 mm²) and more transistors (3,540 million vs 2,080 million), but a lower transistor density (12.0M vs 13.0M per mm²).

Clock speeds are not directly comparable, as the W4300 lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The K5100M lists a base and boost clock of 771 MHz and a memory clock of 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The bus interface differs fundamentally: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the W4300 versus MXM-B (3.0) for the K5100M.

Physical dimensions differ, with the W4300 measuring 171 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the K5100M has no listed dimensions. The W4300 is single-slot and has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the K5100M’s outputs are portable-device dependent. The W4300 has a suggested PSU of 250W, while the K5100M has none. The K5100M supports a newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 vs 1.2.170) but an older DirectX feature level (11_0 vs 12_0). The W4300 has a higher pixel rate (14.88 GPixel/s vs 24.67 GPixel/s) and texture rate (44.64 GTexel/s vs 98.69 GTexel/s) are lower than the K5100M, but its fp32 compute is also lower at 1,428.5 GFLOPS versus 2.369 TFLOPS.