AMD FirePro W5000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct head-to-head comparison between the AMD FirePro W5000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, using the Geekbench OpenCL workload. In that test, the AMD FirePro W5000 scored 9,803 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M scored 9,745 points. The AMD part wins by a narrow 0.6% margin, a difference that is effectively within run-to-run variance for synthetic OpenCL workloads. The benchmark results indicate that both products occupy nearly identical compute territory, despite their very different design goals and hardware configurations.

The FirePro W5000's OpenCL score places it at the 47th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals, based on average score, are the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M at 9,832 points (0.3% higher), the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 at 9,846 points (0.4% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 at 9,780 points (0.2% lower), and the NVIDIA Tesla M10 at 9,724 points (0.8% lower). The spread across this group is only about 1.2%, so the FirePro W5000 is not meaningfully faster or slower than any of these cards in aggregate OpenCL performance.

The GeForce GTX 950M's average benchmark score, which combines its OpenCL and Vulkan results, is 8,135. Its nearest rivals tell a similar story of tight grouping: the AMD Radeon R9 M360 scores 8,129 (0.1% lower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 scores 8,167 (0.4% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce 945M scores 8,099 (0.4% lower), and the NVIDIA GRID K2 scores 8,080 (0.7% lower). The GTX 950M sits at the 42nd percentile among all GPUs, five points below the FirePro W5000.

The GTX 950M also has a recorded Vulkan score of 6,525, which is substantially lower than its own OpenCL result. The FirePro W5000 has no Vulkan benchmark entry in the database, so a direct Vulkan comparison cannot be made from the recorded data.

Interpreting the head-to-head result requires care. The 0.6% delta is the only direct measurement, and it favors AMD. However, the GTX 950M's average score across multiple workloads is dragged down by its Vulkan result. If the database only had the OpenCL score for the GTX 950M, its average would be 9,745, which would place it much closer to the FirePro W5000. The inclusion of the Vulkan score lowers the GTX 950M's aggregate standing, but it does not change the direct OpenCL comparison.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD FirePro W5000 is the better choice for pure OpenCL compute workloads. It wins the only direct head-to-head test by 0.6%, and it sits five percentile points higher in the overall GPU distribution. Its 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth, delivered over a 256-bit GDDR5 interface, is more than three times the bandwidth of the GTX 950M's 28.80 GB/s DDR3 memory. In memory-bound OpenCL kernels, that advantage would likely translate into a more pronounced real-world gap than the synthetic score alone suggests.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, however, offers twice the memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB. For workloads that require large working sets but do not demand high bandwidth, the extra capacity could be decisive. The GTX 950M also has a higher peak FP32 throughput at 1,438.7 GFLOPS compared to the FirePro W5000's 1,267.2 GFLOPS, and a higher texture rate at 44.96 GTexel/s versus 39.60 GTexel/s. The FirePro W5000 counters with a higher pixel rate at 26.40 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s, and more ROPs at 32 versus 16.

The data suggests a split decision. For users whose workloads are bandwidth-bound or pixel-heavy, the FirePro W5000 is the stronger part. For users who need more than 2 GB of memory or who rely on Vulkan support, the GTX 950M is the safer pick. The GTX 950M's Vulkan score of 6,525 is the only Vulkan measurement in the entire comparison, and the FirePro W5000 has no recorded Vulkan result. That absence is notable for any workload targeting modern Vulkan APIs.

The production status of both parts is end-of-life, so neither is a forward-looking purchase. The FirePro W5000 launched with a launch MSRP of 599 USD. The GTX 950M has no recorded launch MSRP. Within the context of the database, the FirePro W5000 edges out the GTX 950M in overall standing, but the margin is small enough that workload characteristics should drive the decision.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro W5000 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Pitcairn chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M uses the Maxwell architecture, with the GM107 chip, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. Both parts share the same process node and foundry, so any architectural differences are not attributable to manufacturing process.

The FirePro W5000 packs 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter. The GTX 950M has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, for a density of 12.6 million per square millimeter. The AMD chip is both larger and denser, with roughly 50% more transistors on a die that is about 43% larger.

The compute resources differ significantly. The FirePro W5000 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 950M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD part leads in all three categories, with 20% more shading units, 20% more TMUs, and double the ROP count.

Memory architecture is where the two diverge most sharply. The FirePro W5000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 950M uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, achieving 28.80 GB/s. The AMD card has 3.6 times the memory bandwidth, while the NVIDIA card has twice the capacity. The GTX 950M's memory runs at 900 MHz (1,800 Mbps effective), while the FirePro W5000's memory runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The effective data rate is nearly double on the AMD side, compounded by the wider bus.

The GTX 950M has explicit base and boost clocks of 993 MHz and 1,124 MHz respectively, while the FirePro W5000 has no recorded base or boost clock. The GTX 950M's higher clock speeds partially compensate for its smaller shading unit count, resulting in a higher FP32 throughput: 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,267.2 GFLOPS. The texture rate also favors NVIDIA at 44.96 GTexel/s versus 39.60 GTexel/s. The pixel rate favors AMD at 26.40 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s, driven by the doubled ROP count.

API support also differs. The FirePro W5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 950M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part has a higher Vulkan version, which aligns with its recorded Vulkan benchmark score. The AMD part has a slightly higher DirectX feature level.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The FirePro W5000 is a single-slot desktop workstation card with a length of 183 mm (7.2 inches) and a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). The GTX 950M is an integrated GPU for portable devices, with no recorded dimensions and an IGP slot width. The FirePro W5000 has display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 950M's outputs are listed as portable device dependent.

The bus interface differs: the FirePro W5000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the GTX 950M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The AMD card has a suggested power supply of 250 W, while the GTX 950M has no suggested PSU recorded. Both cards have a 75 W TDP and no power connectors, but the FirePro W5000 draws its power through the PCIe slot in a desktop context, while the GTX 950M is soldered into a laptop motherboard.

The FirePro W5000 has no base or boost clock in the database, while the GTX 950M has base and boost clocks of 993 MHz and 1,124 MHz. The memory configurations are fundamentally different: 2 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus versus 4 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The transistor counts differ by nearly a billion, with the AMD chip at 2,800 million versus 1,870 million for NVIDIA.

The release dates differ by roughly two and a half years. The FirePro W5000 was released on 2012-08-06, while the GTX 950M was released on 2015-03-12. Their generational lineages also differ: the FirePro W5000 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation, with a predecessor of FirePro Terascale and a successor of Radeon Pro Polaris. The GTX 950M belongs to the GeForce 900M generation, with a predecessor of GeForce 800M and a successor of GeForce 10 Mobile.

The FirePro W5000 has a recorded launch MSRP of 599 USD, while the GTX 950M has no launch MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the direct head-to-head benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 9,803 versus 9,745 for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M, a margin of 0.6%.

Q: How do their overall GPU percentiles compare?

A: The FirePro W5000 sits at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 950M sits at the 42nd percentile, a gap of five percentage points.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The FirePro W5000 has 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The GTX 950M has 28.80 GB/s from 4 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The AMD card has roughly 3.6 times the bandwidth.

Q: Does the GTX 950M have any compute advantage?

A: Yes, the GTX 950M has higher peak FP32 throughput at 1,438.7 GFLOPS versus 1,267.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro W5000. It also has a higher texture rate at 44.96 GTexel/s versus 39.60 GTexel/s.

Q: Is there a Vulkan benchmark for both cards?

A: No. Only the GTX 950M has a recorded Vulkan score of 6,525. The FirePro W5000 has no Vulkan benchmark entry in the database.

Q: What are the TDP and power requirements of each card?

A: Both cards have a TDP of 75 W and no power connectors. The FirePro W5000 has a suggested power supply of 250 W, while the GTX 950M has no suggested PSU recorded.