AMD FirePro W5000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A and the AMD FirePro W5000 are both end-of-life workstation and mobile-class graphics solutions built on a 28 nm TSMC process. Benchmark data shows the two cards are closely matched, with a single OpenCL benchmark separating them by a narrow margin. The GTX 950A edges out the FirePro W5000 in raw compute scores, but the FirePro counters with a substantially wider memory bus and higher memory bandwidth, making the choice heavily dependent on workload type. This analysis breaks down the data from the FACT PACK to determine where each card stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A scores 10,273 points, while the AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9,803 points. The delta is 4.8% in favor of the GTX 950A, which is a modest but clear win. This result places the GTX 950A in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W5000 sits just one percentile lower at 47. The data indicates that in a pure compute throughput scenario, the NVIDIA card holds a slight advantage.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context for these scores. The GTX 950A's score of 10,273 is only 0.9% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6500M (10,362) and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Tesla C2075 (10,400). It is 2% ahead of the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070) and 2% behind the AMD Radeon RX 550X (10,481). This places the GTX 950A in a tight cluster of similarly performing mobile and older workstation parts. The FirePro W5000's score of 9,803, on the other hand, is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780) and 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla M10 (9,724). It is 0.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832) and 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9,846). These nearest-rival comparisons show that while the GTX 950A wins the head-to-head, both cards are operating in a performance tier where a few percentage points separate a large number of competing products.

It is important to note that while the GTX 950A wins this single test, the margin is not overwhelming. A 4.8% difference in a single benchmark does not translate to a universally dominant position. The data suggests the GTX 950A is the faster card in this specific OpenCL workload, but the performance gap is narrow enough that other system factors or software optimizations could easily shift the balance in a real-world application.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 950A wins the compute benchmark outright. Its 10,273 score against the FirePro W5000's 9,803 gives it a 4.8% advantage in this test. This suggests the GTX 950A is the stronger choice for tasks that rely heavily on raw FP32 compute throughput. Its higher boost clock of 1,124 MHz, compared to the FirePro's unspecified base and boost clocks, likely contributes to this win, as does its Maxwell architecture's efficiency in certain compute workloads. For general-purpose compute tasks or OpenCL-accelerated applications, the data points to the GTX 950A as the better performer.

The AMD FirePro W5000 does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head data, but its specification sheet reveals where it holds structural advantages. The most significant is memory bandwidth. The FirePro W5000 features a 256-bit memory bus with GDDR5 memory running at 800 MHz, yielding 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 950A, in contrast, uses a 128-bit bus with DDR3 memory at 1,001 MHz, resulting in only 32.03 GB/s. This is a 3.2x difference in bandwidth in favor of the AMD card. For workloads that are memory-bound, such as large texture fetches, high-resolution framebuffer operations, or certain scientific computations, the FirePro W5000's superior bandwidth is a clear advantage, even if its raw compute score is lower.

The FirePro W5000 also has more shading units (768 vs. 640), more texture mapping units (48 vs. 40), and more ROPs (32 vs. 16). Its pixel rate is 26.40 GPixel/s versus the GTX 950A's 17.98 GPixel/s. This higher pixel throughput, combined with the massive bandwidth advantage, means the FirePro W5000 is likely better suited for fill-rate-limited scenarios, such as rendering complex scenes at high resolutions with anti-aliasing enabled. The GTX 950A does have a higher texture rate (44.96 GTexel/s vs. 39.60 GTexel/s), showing it is no slouch in that department, but the FirePro's overall memory subsystem is its strongest asset.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A is the faster card for compute workloads. Its 4.8% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test is a genuine, if small, victory. Users whose primary concern is raw computational throughput, as measured by this test, should look to the GTX 950A. Its higher percentile ranking (48 vs. 47) and its position among rivals, sitting close to the faster Radeon RX 6500M and RX 550X, reinforce that it is a slightly more capable compute part overall.

However, the FirePro W5000 is not without a case. Its 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth is a staggering advantage over the GTX 950A's 32.03 GB/s. This, combined with a higher pixel rate (26.40 vs. 17.98 GPixel/s) and a larger ROP count (32 vs. 16), makes it the superior choice for tasks that depend on memory throughput and rasterization speed. If the workload involves heavy data movement, large textures, or high-resolution rendering, the FirePro W5000's architecture is more suited to the task, despite its lower compute score. The FirePro's PCIe 3.0 x16 interface also allows for a more standard desktop installation, while the GTX 950A is limited to an MXM module form factor.

In summary, the GTX 950A wins on compute, and the FirePro W5000 wins on memory and pixel throughput. For a user running compute-heavy OpenCL applications, the GTX 950A is the data-backed choice. For someone dealing with memory-intensive graphics workloads, the FirePro W5000's bandwidth is the deciding factor.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A scores 10,273, which is 4.8% higher than the AMD FirePro W5000's score of 9,803.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does the AMD FirePro W5000 have?

A: The FirePro W5000 has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, thanks to its 256-bit bus and GDDR5 memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A?

A: The GTX 950A has a memory bandwidth of 32.03 GB/s, using a 128-bit bus and DDR3 memory.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the AMD FirePro W5000?

A: The launch MSRP of the AMD FirePro W5000 is 599 USD.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 has 768 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A has 640.

Q: What is the bus interface for each card?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface, while the AMD FirePro W5000 uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent distinct architectural generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950A is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip. It is fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process and packs 1,870 million transistors into a die size of 148 mm². This results in a transistor density of 12.6M / mm². The FirePro W5000, on the other hand, uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the Pitcairn chip. It is also fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process but contains a significantly larger 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, giving it a higher transistor density of 13.2M / mm².

The core configurations differ substantially. The GTX 950A has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Its compute output is rated at 1,438.7 GFLOPS FP32. The FirePro W5000 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, but its FP32 performance is lower at 1,267.2 GFLOPS. This means the GTX 950A achieves higher raw floating-point throughput with fewer cores, indicating a higher clock speed per core is doing the heavy lifting. The FirePro W5000's advantage lies in its larger ROP count and memory subsystem, which are crucial for pixel output and data throughput.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The GTX 950A uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1,001 MHz with an effective speed of 2 Gbps, yielding 32.03 GB/s. The FirePro W5000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, running at 800 MHz with an effective speed of 3.2 Gbps, yielding 102.4 GB/s. This is a fundamental difference; GDDR5 is a superior memory technology for bandwidth-intensive tasks, and the wider bus doubles the data path.

In terms of features, the GTX 950A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The FirePro also has a specific display output configuration of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 950A's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" due to its MXM form factor. The FirePro is a single-slot card, whereas the GTX 950A is an MXM Module.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

• Chip: NVIDIA GM107 vs. AMD Pitcairn
• Architecture: Maxwell vs. GCN 1.0
• Generation: GeForce 900A vs. FirePro GCN (Wx000)
• Transistors: 1,870 million vs. 2,800 million
• Die Size: 148 mm² vs. 212 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.6M / mm² vs. 13.2M / mm²
• Base Clock: 993 MHz vs. Not specified
• Boost Clock: 1,124 MHz vs. Not specified
• Memory Clock: 1,001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) vs. 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective)
• Memory Type: DDR3 vs. GDDR5
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs. 256 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 32.03 GB/s vs. 102.4 GB/s
• Shading Units: 640 vs. 768
• TMUs: 40 vs. 48
• ROPs: 16 vs. 32
• Pixel Rate: 17.98 GPixel/s vs. 26.40 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 44.96 GTexel/s vs. 39.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,438.7 GFLOPS vs. 1,267.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 75 W for both (no difference)
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs. Single-slot
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs. PCIe 3.0 x16
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent vs. 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_0) vs. 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan Support: 1.4 vs. 1.2.170
• Dimensions: Not specified vs. 183 mm (7.2 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height
• Suggested PSU: Not specified vs. 250 W
• Release Date: 2015-03-12 vs. 2012-08-06
• Predecessor: GeForce 800A vs. FirePro Terascale
• Successor: Not specified vs. Radeon Pro Polaris
• Launch MSRP: Not specified vs. 599 USD