AMD FirePro W5000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and AMD FirePro W5000 are both professional workstation GPUs from the Kepler and GCN 1.0 architectures, respectively. Both cards are now end-of-life products, but benchmark data provides a clear comparison of their relative compute capabilities, with the NVIDIA part holding a decisive edge in the available OpenCL test while the AMD card offers a distinct set of physical and interface characteristics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison between these two cards is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are heavily skewed in favor of the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M. In this test, the Quadro K5100M scores 11,771 points, while the FirePro W5000 manages 9,803 points. This represents a 20.1% performance advantage for the NVIDIA card, a substantial margin that underscores its superior raw compute throughput in a widely-used general-purpose GPU workload.

This 20.1% lead is not a marginal difference; it places the Quadro K5100M in a distinctly higher performance tier. To contextualize this, the Quadro K5100M’s nearest rivals by average benchmark score include the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (average score 10,070, delta of -0.3%) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (average score 10,013, delta of 0.3%). The FirePro W5000, on the other hand, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (average score 9,780, delta of 0.2%) and the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (average score 9,832, delta of -0.3%). The performance gap between the two workstation cards is therefore roughly equivalent to the entire performance delta separating the Quadro K5100M from its closest rivals.

The data shows that the Quadro K5100M’s average benchmark score of 10,043 is 2.4% higher than the FirePro W5000’s average of 9,803. While the head-to-head OpenCL delta is larger at 20.1%, the average score difference is smaller because the Quadro K5100M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 8,315, which pulls its average down. The OpenCL result is the purest apples-to-apples comparison of compute performance, and it clearly favors the NVIDIA part. In this single benchmark category, the Quadro K5100M takes the win with a 1-0 record.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures of these two GPUs are fundamentally different, explaining the performance disparity. The Quadro K5100M is built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, specifically using the GK104 chip. This chip is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC and contains 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.0 million per mm². In contrast, the FirePro W5000 uses AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) 1.0 architecture, based on the Pitcairn chip. This chip is also built on a 28 nm process at TSMC but contains 2,800 million transistors on a smaller die of 212 mm², yielding a higher transistor density of 13.2 million per mm².

The compute resources are starkly different. The Quadro K5100M features 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operation units (ROPs). The FirePro W5000 is equipped with only 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This means the NVIDIA GPU has exactly double the shading units and more than double the TMUs of the AMD GPU. Consequently, the Quadro K5100M achieves a texture rate of 98.69 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 24.67 GPixel/s, while the FirePro W5000 delivers a texture rate of just 39.60 GTexel/s and a pixel rate of 26.40 GPixel/s. The pixel rate is slightly higher on the AMD card due to its higher base clock, but the NVIDIA card’s massive advantage in texture throughput is a direct result of its superior TMU count.

Clock speeds are also a factor, though the data is incomplete. The Quadro K5100M operates at a base and boost clock of 771 MHz, with memory running at 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective). The FirePro W5000’s core clocks are not listed, but its memory runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective). The Quadro K5100M’s memory configuration is also superior, offering 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for a bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s, compared to the FirePro W5000’s 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has four times the memory capacity and 12.5% more memory bandwidth.

In terms of floating-point performance, the Quadro K5100M delivers 2.369 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the FirePro W5000 offers 1,267.2 GFLOPS (1.267 TFLOPS). This is an 87% advantage for the NVIDIA card, which aligns closely with the 20.1% OpenCL benchmark delta when accounting for real-world efficiency differences. The FirePro W5000 does have a lower thermal design power (TDP) of 75 W compared to the Quadro K5100M’s 100 W, and it is a single-slot card with a 250 W suggested PSU, whereas the Quadro K5100M is an MXM module. The FirePro W5000 also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro K5100M uses MXM-B (3.0), reflecting its mobile-oriented design.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is the superior performer in compute benchmarks, winning the only head-to-head test by a 20.1% margin. Its average benchmark score of 10,043 places it in the 48th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W5000’s average of 9,803 places it in the 47th percentile. This percentile difference is small, but the raw scores and the head-to-head delta show that the Quadro K5100M is meaningfully faster in OpenCL workloads.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, the Quadro K5100M is the clear choice. Its 2.369 TFLOPS FP32 performance, 8 GB of memory, and higher bandwidth make it better suited for demanding professional applications that leverage general-purpose GPU computing. The FirePro W5000, however, offers advantages in other areas. It is a single-slot card with a lower 75 W TDP, making it easier to integrate into space-constrained or power-sensitive workstations. It also has a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and a launch MSRP of 599 USD, which was its only listed price point. The Quadro K5100M, being an MXM module, is designed for laptops and mobile workstations, which limits its deployability in desktop systems.

Strictly from the data, the Quadro K5100M wins on performance, memory capacity, and bandwidth. The FirePro W5000 wins on power efficiency, physical form factor, and interface compatibility. The choice ultimately depends on whether the workload demands the Quadro’s compute muscle or the FirePro’s flexible, low-power design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M scores 11,771 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is 20.1% higher than the AMD FirePro W5000’s score of 9,803.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD FirePro W5000 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. Both use a 256-bit memory bus.

Q: What is the FP32 compute performance of these cards?

A: The Quadro K5100M delivers 2.369 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, whereas the FirePro W5000 provides 1,267.2 GFLOPS.

Q: What are the physical form factors of the two cards?

A: The Quadro K5100M is an MXM module, while the FirePro W5000 is a single-slot card with a 183 mm length and 111 mm height.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K5100M’s average score of 10,043 is close to the AMD Radeon R9 M375 (10,070, -0.3%) and the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M (10,013, 0.3%). The FirePro W5000’s average of 9,803 is near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070 (9,780, 0.2%) and the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M (9,832, -0.3%).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro K5100M has a TDP of 100 W, while the FirePro W5000 has a TDP of 75 W.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins decisively in raw compute benchmarks. Its 20.1% lead in OpenCL performance, coupled with its 2.369 TFLOPS FP32 output, makes it the better choice for compute-heavy professional tasks such as rendering, simulation, or data processing. Its 8 GB memory capacity is four times that of the FirePro W5000, which is critical for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The Quadro K5100M also has a higher memory bandwidth of 115.2 GB/s versus 102.4 GB/s, further enhancing its performance in memory-bound workloads. Its higher texture rate of 98.69 GTexel/s also makes it superior for tasks that rely heavily on texture mapping.

The AMD FirePro W5000 wins in areas of physical design and power efficiency. Its 75 W TDP is 25% lower than the Quadro K5100M’s 100 W, making it more suitable for workstations with limited cooling or power budgets. Its single-slot form factor and standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface give it a flexibility advantage over the MXM-based Quadro K5100M, which is typically confined to mobile platforms. The FirePro W5000 also has a slightly higher pixel rate of 26.40 GPixel/s compared to the Quadro’s 24.67 GPixel/s, which could benefit certain fill-rate-limited scenarios. Its display outputs (1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2) are also explicitly defined, whereas the Quadro K5100M’s outputs are listed as dependent on the portable device. For users with a desktop workstation requiring a low-power, single-slot professional GPU, the FirePro W5000 is the more practical option despite its lower compute scores.