AMD FirePro W5000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M are both end-of-life 28 nm parts, but they target entirely different segments of the GPU market. The data shows a single head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 960M scores 11,045 against the FirePro W5000’s 9,803, a 11.2% difference. However, their average benchmark scores across all recorded tests tell a more nuanced story: the FirePro W5000 averages 9,803, while the GTX 960M averages 9,645, placing them at the 47th and 46th percentiles of all GPUs, respectively. This means neither card is a clear overall winner; instead, their relative strengths depend heavily on the specific workload, memory configuration, and architectural design.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 960M wins the only direct comparison available, posting a 1,242-point advantage in Geekbench OpenCL. This is a compute-oriented test, and the Maxwell architecture’s higher raw FP32 throughput of 1.505 TFLOPS versus 1,267.2 GFLOPS on the FirePro W5000 gives it a measurable edge in that specific metric. The GTX 960M also features a 4 GB memory buffer, double the FirePro’s 2 GB, which can be a decisive factor in workloads that exceed the smaller frame buffer, even if the FirePro’s 256-bit bus provides higher total bandwidth.

The FirePro W5000, despite losing the compute benchmark, holds a higher average score across its full benchmark suite (9,803 vs 9,645). Its strengths lie in its memory subsystem and professional-grade feature set. With 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth versus 80.19 GB/s on the GTX 960M, the FirePro is better suited for memory-bandwidth-intensive tasks like large texture fetches or multi-display output. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface (versus the GTX 960M’s MXM-B 3.0) also allows for a direct desktop integration path, whereas the GTX 960M is a mobile module. For professional applications that rely on OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, the FirePro’s driver stack and 32 ROPs (double the GTX 960M’s 16) give it an advantage in pixel-heavy rendering, even though its texture rate of 39.60 GTexel/s is lower than the GTX 960M’s 47.04 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The FirePro W5000 is built on GCN 1.0 with the Pitcairn chip, while the GTX 960M uses Maxwell with the GM107 chip. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but the FirePro packs 2,800 million transistors into a 212 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The GTX 960M has 1,870 million transistors on a smaller 148 mm² die, with a lower density of 12.6M per mm². This means the FirePro has more raw hardware resources, including 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the GTX 960M’s 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs.

The memory architecture is a key differentiator. The FirePro W5000 uses a 256-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, running at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), delivering 102.4 GB/s. The GTX 960M uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, running at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), but its narrower bus limits bandwidth to 80.19 GB/s. Clock speeds also differ: the GTX 960M has a base clock of 1097 MHz and a boost clock of 1176 MHz, while the FirePro W5000 has no listed base or boost clocks, only its memory clock. This suggests the Maxwell part relies on higher clock speeds to achieve its FP32 throughput, while the FirePro depends on wider execution resources.

API support shows a split. The FirePro W5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 960M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and a newer Vulkan 1.4. The higher Vulkan version on the GTX 960M indicates better support for modern graphics APIs, which could matter in newer titles or compute workloads. The FirePro also offers display outputs of 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the GTX 960M’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile MXM form factor. The FirePro is single-slot with no power connectors and a 75 W TDP, while the GTX 960M is an MXM module with the same 75 W TDP but no suggested PSU rating.

The Verdict

The data supports a split decision based on use case. For raw compute performance in OpenCL, the GTX 960M is the clear pick, with an 11.2% lead in the head-to-head benchmark and a higher FP32 rating. Its 4 GB memory capacity also makes it more viable for workloads that require larger datasets. However, the FirePro W5000 has a higher average benchmark score (9,803 vs 9,645) and sits one percentile higher, indicating it performs better across a broader range of unspecified tests. Its wider memory bus and higher bandwidth, combined with more ROPs, make it a stronger candidate for pixel-pushing tasks or multi-display professional setups.

The GTX 960M’s 46th percentile and its nearest rivals—the Quadro K5000 (9,637, 0.1% slower) and Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653, 0.1% slower)—show it sits in a tightly contested mid-range pack. The FirePro W5000’s rivals include the GTX 1070 (9,780, 0.2% slower) and Quadro M2000M (9,832, 0.3% faster), placing it in a slightly higher-performance tier. For a user prioritizing compute throughput or needing 4 GB of VRAM, the GTX 960M is the data-backed choice. For professional graphics work, bandwidth, or a desktop card with stable drivers, the FirePro W5000’s higher average score and superior memory subsystem make it the safer recommendation. Neither card is future-proof, but the FirePro’s architecture is better suited for sustained professional workloads, while the GTX 960M is a capable mobile compute engine.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 averages 9,803 across all recorded benchmarks, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M averages 9,645.

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

A: The FirePro W5000 delivers 102.4 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the GTX 960M delivers 80.19 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the GTX 960M support a newer Vulkan version?

A: Yes, the GTX 960M supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the FirePro W5000 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How do they compare in the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The GTX 960M scores 11,045, which is 11.2% higher than the FirePro W5000’s 9,803.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro W5000 has 768 shading units, compared to 640 on the GTX 960M.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: Both the FirePro W5000 and the GTX 960M have a TDP of 75 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M wins decisively. It scores 11,045 against the AMD FirePro W5000’s 9,803, a delta of -11.2% for the FirePro. This is a substantial margin in a compute-heavy test, reflecting the GTX 960M’s higher FP32 throughput of 1.505 TFLOPS. The FirePro W5000’s 1,267.2 GFLOPS is 15.8% lower, which aligns closely with the benchmark delta. This suggests that in raw floating-point compute, the Maxwell architecture’s higher clock speeds (1097 MHz base, 1176 MHz boost) on the GTX 960M outweigh the FirePro’s larger number of shading units (768 vs 640).

The FirePro W5000 counters with a higher average benchmark score across all tests, 9,803 versus 9,645. This 158-point gap is small but meaningful, indicating that in non-OpenCL workloads, the FirePro’s advantages come to the fore. Its 102.4 GB/s of memory bandwidth is 27.7% higher than the GTX 960M’s 80.19 GB/s, and its 32 ROPs are double the GTX 960M’s 16. These specs favor fill-rate-bound tasks like high-resolution rendering or multi-display output. The FirePro also has a higher transistor density (13.2M vs 12.6M per mm²), suggesting a more complex design that may handle certain professional workloads more efficiently.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the GTX 960M’s average score of 9,645 is within 0.2% of the Quadro K5000 (9,637) and 0.1% of the Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653), placing it in a very tight competitive cluster. The FirePro W5000’s 9,803 is 0.2% ahead of the GTX 1070 (9,780) and 0.3% behind the Quadro M2000M (9,832), showing it competes with a slightly faster set of cards. This data suggests that while the GTX 960M wins the compute benchmark, the FirePro W5000 is the better-rounded card for a broader range of tasks, even though it loses the only direct head-to-head test. The GTX 960M’s win is singular and specific, while the FirePro’s strength is its consistency across the benchmark suite.