AMD FirePro W5000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole common benchmark between the AMD FirePro W5000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisive. The GTX 960 scores 18,925, while the FirePro W5000 manages 9,803. That gives NVIDIA a 48.2% lead, with the delta expressed as -48.2% from the AMD card's perspective. In practical terms, this means the GTX 960 delivers nearly double the raw compute throughput in this OpenCL workload. The gap is not marginal; it is a category-level difference in performance.

Context from the nearest-rival tables reinforces how each card sits in its respective performance tier. The FirePro W5000’s 9,803 score places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780), 0.3% below the Quadro M2000M (9,832), and 0.4% below the Quadro 6000 (9,846). It also edges out the Tesla M10 (9,724) by 0.8%. These deltaPct values are tiny, meaning the FirePro W5000 is tightly clustered with several mid-range workstation and datacenter parts from a later era. The GTX 960’s 18,925 score, by contrast, sits 0.2% above the GeForce GTX 465 (9,294), 0.3% above the GTX 850M (9,302), and 0.4% above the Radeon R7 M380 (9,313), while trailing the Radeon Vega 8 (9,221) by 0.6%. Wait—those rival numbers are far lower than the GTX 960’s own score. That is odd, but the data is the data: the nearestRivals field for the GTX 960 lists average scores around 9,300, which is roughly half of the card’s OpenCL result. This suggests the average benchmark score (9,273) and the OpenCL-specific result (18,925) diverge sharply, likely because the average includes other tests. Still, in the head-to-head OpenCL comparison, the GTX 960 is the clear winner, and the 48.2% margin dwarfs any rival delta in either card’s list.

The FirePro W5000’s percentile rank of 47 versus the GTX 960’s 45 is a curiosity. Despite losing the OpenCL test by a wide margin, the AMD card places higher among all GPUs. That percentile is based on average benchmark score, not the single head-to-head test. The FirePro W5000’s average is 9,803, while the GTX 960’s average is 9,273. So in aggregate, the FirePro W5000 actually outperforms the GTX 960 on average across all recorded benchmarks, even though the one shared test favors NVIDIA. This is a reminder that OpenCL is just one workload, and the two cards’ overall profiles differ.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the shared Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 wins decisively, scoring 18,925 versus the AMD FirePro W5000’s 9,803. That is a 48.2% advantage for NVIDIA in this specific test.

Q: How do the two cards compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 has a higher average benchmark score of 9,803, compared to 9,273 for the GTX 960. This places the FirePro W5000 at the 47th percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 960 sits at the 45th percentile.

Q: Are the nearest rivals for each card similar in performance?

A: No. The FirePro W5000’s nearest rivals (GTX 1070, Quadro M2000M, Quadro 6000, Tesla M10) all score within 0.2–0.8% of its 9,803 average. The GTX 960’s nearest rivals (GTX 465, GTX 850M, R7 M380, Vega 8) score within 0.2–0.6% of its 9,273 average. The two cards inhabit different performance neighborhoods.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The GTX 960’s GM206 chip has 2,940 million transistors, while the FirePro W5000’s Pitcairn chip has 2,800 million. The NVIDIA chip also has a slightly larger die at 228 mm² versus 212 mm², making the transistor density 12.9M per mm² for NVIDIA and 13.2M per mm² for AMD.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth despite a narrower bus?

A: The GTX 960, despite its 128-bit bus, achieves 112.2 GB/s bandwidth thanks to 7 Gbps effective memory clocks. The FirePro W5000 uses a 256-bit bus but runs memory at 3.2 Gbps effective, yielding 102.4 GB/s. So NVIDIA wins bandwidth by 9.8 GB/s.

Q: What is the pixel and texture throughput difference?

A: The GTX 960 has a pixel rate of 37.70 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 75.39 GTexel/s. The FirePro W5000 delivers 26.40 GPixel/s and 39.60 GTexel/s. NVIDIA is 42.8% faster in pixel rate and 90.4% faster in texture rate.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD FirePro W5000 uses the Pitcairn chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 uses the GM206 chip on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, from the GeForce 900 generation. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but that is where the similarities end.

The FirePro W5000 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The GTX 960 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. NVIDIA’s core configuration is substantially larger, with 33% more shaders and TMUs. This directly explains the texture rate gap (75.39 vs 39.60 GTexel/s) and the FP32 compute difference: the GTX 960 delivers 2.413 TFLOPS, while the FirePro W5000 offers 1,267.2 GFLOPS. That is nearly a 90% advantage in raw floating-point throughput for NVIDIA.

Memory architecture also diverges. The FirePro W5000 uses a 256-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), yielding 102.4 GB/s. The GTX 960 uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective), yielding 112.2 GB/s. NVIDIA compensates for the narrower bus with much faster memory clocks, and ends up with 9.6% more bandwidth. Both cards have identical memory capacity, but the GTX 960’s higher effective speed is the differentiator.

Clock behavior is another split. The FirePro W5000 has no base or boost clock listed in the data; its memory clock is fixed at 800 MHz. The GTX 960 has a base clock of 1127 MHz and a boost clock of 1178 MHz, giving it dynamic frequency scaling that the AMD card lacks. This is reflected in the higher pixel and texture rates for NVIDIA.

API support differs notably. The FirePro W5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 960 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer Vulkan revision and higher DirectX feature level favor NVIDIA. Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies.

Physical design separates them further. The FirePro W5000 is a single-slot card, 183 mm long, with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP. The GTX 960 is dual-slot, 241 mm long, requires a 6-pin power connector, and has a 120 W TDP. The AMD card is shorter, slimmer, and draws less power, but the NVIDIA card needs more cooling and power delivery for its higher performance.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear trade-off. If the priority is raw compute performance in OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 is the obvious choice. It beats the FirePro W5000 by 48.2% in the shared benchmark, offers 2.413 TFLOPS versus 1,267.2 GFLOPS, and has faster pixel and texture rates. The GTX 960 also has broader API support with Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12_1.

However, the FirePro W5000 has its own strengths. Its average benchmark score (9,803) is higher than the GTX 960’s (9,273), yielding a better overall percentile rank (47 vs 45). It consumes 75 W versus 120 W, fits in a single slot, requires no auxiliary power connector, and is shorter at 183 mm versus 241 mm. For constrained chassis or power-limited environments, the FirePro W5000 is more practical. Its 256-bit memory bus also offers more headroom for bandwidth-hungry workloads, despite the lower effective speed.

The GTX 960’s nearest rivals are all older or mobile parts (GTX 465, GTX 850M, R7 M380, Vega 8), while the FirePro W5000’s nearest rivals include the GTX 1070 and Quadro 6000. This suggests the AMD card punches above its weight in average performance, even if it loses the one direct comparison. The GTX 960 is a mid-range consumer card that dominates in compute but falls behind in overall average score due to other benchmark results.

Who should pick which? For users running OpenCL-heavy workloads, the GTX 960 is the data-supported winner. For users prioritizing low power draw, compact size, and better overall average scores, the FirePro W5000 is justified. The choice hinges on whether the specific application relies on the OpenCL path or benefits from the AMD card’s efficiency and broader workload balance. There is no universal winner; the data supports either pick depending on the use case.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD FirePro W5000 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960 |

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

| Chip | Pitcairn | GM206 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Generation | FirePro GCN (Wx000) | GeForce 900 |

| Transistors | 2,800 million | 2,940 million |

| Die Size | 212 mm² | 228 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | — | 1127 MHz |

| Boost Clock | — | 1178 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) | 1753 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 112.2 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1,024 |

| TMUs | 48 | 64 |

| ROPs | 32 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 26.40 GPixel/s | 37.70 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 39.60 GTexel/s | 75.39 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,267.2 GFLOPS | 2.413 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 120 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Length | 183 mm (7.2 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2012-08-06 | 2015-01-21 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | 199 USD |

| Benchmark (OpenCL) | 9,803 | 18,925 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 9,803 | 9,273 |

| Percentile | 47 | 45 |