AMD FirePro W5000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K1200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct comparison between the AMD FirePro W5000 and the NVIDIA Quadro K1200, and it is a decisive one. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro W5000 scores 9,803 points, while the Quadro K1200 manages 8,831 points. That is an 11% advantage for the AMD card, the only head-to-head benchmark available in the dataset. The win count reflects this: the FirePro W5000 takes 1 win, the Quadro K1200 takes 0.

Looking beyond the direct matchup, the FirePro W5000 sits at the 47th percentile of all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 9,803. Its nearest rivals in the database are tightly clustered. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 scores 9,780, which is 0.2% behind the FirePro. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 9,832, putting it 0.3% ahead. The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 scores 9,846, 0.4% ahead. The NVIDIA Tesla M10 scores 9,724, 0.8% behind. Essentially, the FirePro W5000 is embedded in a pack of cards that all score within 1% of each other, meaning its OpenCL performance is competitive with a range of higher-tier and professional GPUs from the same era.

The Quadro K1200, by contrast, sits at the 43rd percentile, with an average benchmark score of 8,265. This average is dragged down by its Vulkan result of 7,698, while its OpenCL score of 8,831 is the better of the two. Its nearest rivals are also a mixed bag. The AMD Radeon R9 M375X scores 8,325, which is 0.7% ahead of the Quadro. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 scores 8,167, which is 1.2% behind. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 950M scores 8,135, 1.6% behind. The AMD Radeon R9 M360 scores 8,129, 1.7% behind. The Quadro K1200 is thus positioned in a lower performance tier, roughly 11% to 18% behind the FirePro W5000 in raw compute benchmarks, depending on which metric is used.

The 11% gap in OpenCL is substantial for two professional workstation cards. It suggests that for compute-heavy tasks, the FirePro W5000 has a clear edge. However, the Quadro K1200 does have a Vulkan score in the database, a test the FirePro W5000 did not participate in. This limits the comparison: the data can confirm OpenCL superiority for the AMD card, but cannot confirm any Vulkan advantage for either side.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to a straightforward compute hierarchy. The AMD FirePro W5000 wins in the only benchmark where both cards were tested, Geekbench OpenCL, with an 11% margin. That is a meaningful lead in a general-purpose compute workload. The FirePro W5000 also has a higher raw memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s for the Quadro K1200, a 27.7% advantage. This suggests the AMD card sustains memory-intensive operations better, which often matters in rendering, simulation, and data processing.

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 does not win any head-to-head benchmark in the database. However, it does have a Vulkan score of 7,698, which is its only unique benchmark result. The FirePro W5000 has no recorded Vulkan score, so the database cannot determine which card is faster in Vulkan workloads. The Quadro K1200 also has a higher memory capacity at 4 GB versus 2 GB. For tasks that require holding larger datasets in video memory, such as complex 3D scenes or higher-resolution textures, the Quadro K1200 may be the more practical choice, even if its bandwidth is lower.

The use-case split is therefore clear: the FirePro W5000 is the compute performer, winning the only shared test and offering superior memory bandwidth. The Quadro K1200 is the capacity option, with double the memory and a unique Vulkan result, but it trails in every measured compute metric. For users prioritizing raw OpenCL throughput, the AMD card is the data-backed choice. For users who need more memory headroom or Vulkan support, the NVIDIA card has attributes the database records, but no benchmark confirms an overall win.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural families. The AMD FirePro W5000 uses the Pitcairn chip, built on GCN 1.0 architecture, and belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation. The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 uses the GM107 chip, built on Maxwell architecture, and belongs to the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation, though the chip itself is Maxwell. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts and die sizes differ significantly.

The FirePro W5000 packs 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm². The Quadro K1200 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, a density of 12.6 million per mm². The AMD chip is larger and more complex, which likely contributes to its higher compute throughput. The FirePro W5000 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The Quadro K1200 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The AMD card has 50% more shading units, 50% more TMUs, and double the ROPs, which explains its higher pixel and texture rates.

The pixel rate for the FirePro W5000 is 26.40 GPixel/s, while the Quadro K1200 is at 16.53 GPixel/s. The texture rate is 39.60 GTexel/s for the AMD card and 33.06 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA card. The FP32 compute output is 1,267.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro W5000 versus 1,057.8 GFLOPS for the Quadro K1200, a 19.8% advantage for AMD. Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and neither has a recorded FP16 performance figure. The architectural focus is purely on rasterization and general compute.

The memory subsystems also differ. The FirePro W5000 uses a 256-bit memory bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro K1200 uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5. The AMD card has double the bus width, which drives its higher bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. The NVIDIA card compensates with double the capacity. The effective memory clock for the FirePro W5000 is 3.2 Gbps, while the Quadro K1200 runs at 5 Gbps, but the narrower bus limits its overall throughput. This is a classic trade-off: the AMD card favors bandwidth, the NVIDIA card favors capacity.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows several clear differences between the two cards. The FirePro W5000 has a base clock listed as null, meaning the database does not record a base clock for it, while the Quadro K1200 has a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 1,033 MHz. The FirePro W5000 also has no recorded boost clock. The memory clock differs: the FirePro W5000 runs at 800 MHz with 3.2 Gbps effective, while the Quadro K1200 runs at 1,253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective. Despite the higher memory clock, the Quadro K1200 has lower total bandwidth due to its 128-bit bus.

Power consumption is another differentiator. The FirePro W5000 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro K1200 has a TDP of 45 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The NVIDIA card is significantly more power-efficient, drawing 40% less power. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors, so they draw all power from the PCIe slot. The bus interface differs: the FirePro W5000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro K1200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

Display outputs differ as well. The FirePro W5000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Quadro K1200 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. The Quadro supports more simultaneous displays, which could matter in multi-monitor workstation setups. The physical dimensions also differ: the FirePro W5000 is 183 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the Quadro K1200 is 160 mm long and 69 mm tall. The NVIDIA card is shorter and lower-profile, which may fit in smaller chassis.

The API support shows a notable split. The FirePro W5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro K1200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card has a newer Vulkan version, which may be relevant for modern Vulkan applications. The release dates differ: the FirePro W5000 launched on 2012-08-06, while the Quadro K1200 launched on 2015-01-27, roughly two and a half years later. Both are end-of-life products. The FirePro W5000 had a launch MSRP of 599 USD, which the database records but does not apply to the Quadro K1200.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9,803 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA Quadro K1200 scores 8,831, giving the AMD card an 11% lead.

Q: Does the Quadro K1200 have any unique benchmark results?

A: Yes, the Quadro K1200 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7,698. The FirePro W5000 has no recorded Vulkan score in the database.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The FirePro W5000 has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the Quadro K1200 has 4 GB of GDDR5. The Quadro has double the capacity.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The FirePro W5000 has 102.4 GB/s, while the Quadro K1200 has 80.19 GB/s. The AMD card is 27.7% higher.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The FirePro W5000 has a TDP of 75 W, and the Quadro K1200 has a TDP of 45 W. The NVIDIA card draws 40% less power.

Q: Which card supports more display outputs?

A: The Quadro K1200 supports 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the FirePro W5000 supports 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The NVIDIA card supports two more outputs.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous on compute performance. The AMD FirePro W5000 wins the only head-to-head OpenCL benchmark by 11%, and it also holds advantages in pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 throughput, and memory bandwidth. Its 768 shading units and 256-bit memory bus give it a structural edge in parallel workloads. The FirePro W5000 also sits at the 47th percentile overall, with an average score of 9,803, which places it among rivals like the GeForce GTX 1070 and Quadro 6000, all within 1% of each other. For users whose primary workload is OpenCL compute, the FirePro W5000 is the data-backed choice.

The NVIDIA Quadro K1200 does not win any shared benchmark, but it offers attributes the AMD card lacks. Its 4 GB memory capacity is double that of the FirePro W5000, which matters for memory-heavy tasks. Its Vulkan 1.4 support is newer than the FirePro's Vulkan 1.2.170, and it has a recorded Vulkan score of 7,698. Its 45 W TDP is significantly lower than 75 W, making it the more energy-efficient option. It also supports 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs versus 3 on the AMD card, and its smaller dimensions may fit in tighter spaces. For users who need more memory, lower power draw, or more display connectivity, the Quadro K1200 is the practical pick.

The final recommendation depends on the workload. Compute performance and bandwidth favor the FirePro W5000. Memory capacity, power efficiency, and display flexibility favor the Quadro K1200. The database records one decisive compute win for AMD, but the NVIDIA card offers compensating features that are not captured in that single benchmark. Users should weigh the 11% OpenCL advantage against the double memory and 40% lower power draw of the Quadro. There is no overall winner in the data; there are two different tools for two different jobs.