AMD FirePro W5000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

# FAQ

Q: How do the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M and AMD FirePro W5000 compare in overall benchmark average?

A: The Quadro M2000M holds a marginal edge, with an average benchmark score of 9832 versus the FirePro W5000's 9803. This places the M2000M 0.3% ahead of the W5000, a difference well within run-to-run variance.

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL test, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 10057, while the AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9803. The M2000M leads by 2.6% in this specific workload.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the AMD FirePro W5000?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 had a launch MSRP of 599 USD. No launch MSRP is listed for the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M.

Q: Which GPU offers higher memory bandwidth, and what is the difference?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 offers significantly higher memory bandwidth at 102.4 GB/s, compared to 80.19 GB/s for the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M. This is a 27.7% advantage for the W5000, driven by a 256-bit bus versus the M2000M's 128-bit bus.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in transistor count and die size?

A: The AMD FirePro W5000 uses 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M uses 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the W5000 has a slightly higher transistor density at 13.2M/mm² versus 12.6M/mm² for the M2000M.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD FirePro W5000 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, though the M2000M's DirectX 12 support is 11_0 while the W5000 supports 11_1.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a picture of near-parity, but the underlying specifications suggest each GPU has distinct strengths that would matter in different professional workloads.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M takes the only head-to-head benchmark win, scoring 10057 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 9803 for the AMD FirePro W5000. This 2.6% advantage in a compute-oriented workload is notable given the M2000M's lower transistor count and smaller die. The M2000M also delivers higher raw FP32 performance at 1,455.4 GFLOPS, which is 14.8% above the W5000's 1,267.2 GFLOPS. For tasks that heavily leverage shader compute — such as certain simulation, rendering, or image-processing pipelines — the M2000M would likely sustain a measurable lead.

The AMD FirePro W5000, however, wins decisively in memory-centric metrics. Its memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s exceeds the M2000M's 80.19 GB/s by a substantial margin, thanks to a 256-bit memory interface versus 128-bit. The W5000 also has more shading units (768 versus 640), more texture mapping units (48 versus 40), and double the ROPs (32 versus 16). Its pixel rate of 26.40 GPixel/s is a significant 45.1% higher than the M2000M's 18.19 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 39.60 GTexel/s is within 12.9% of the M2000M's 45.48 GTexel/s despite fewer TMUs. For fill-rate-bound workloads like anti-aliased rendering, high-resolution display output, or multi-sample rasterization, the W5000 is structurally stronger.

The two GPUs land at the same 47th percentile among all GPUs, reinforcing their overall equivalence. The M2000M performs best relative to rivals like the NVIDIA Quadro 6000, sitting just 0.1% behind that older card's average score of 9846, while the W5000 trails the same card by 0.4%. Against the GeForce GTX 1070 — a consumer card with an average score of 9780 — the M2000M leads by 0.5% and the W5000 by 0.2%.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two professional GPUs is substantial, reflecting different design philosophies from NVIDIA and AMD in the early-to-mid 2010s.

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is built on the Maxwell architecture, specifically the GM107 chip. Maxwell was designed for efficiency, with an emphasis on improving performance-per-watt and compute throughput per shader. The M2000M's 640 shading units are organized in a configuration that allows for higher clock speeds at lower power; its base clock is 1098 MHz with a boost of 1137 MHz. The chip contains 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M/mm². Maxwell's strength lies in its ability to extract high FP32 performance from a relatively lean die, which is evident in the M2000M's 1,455.4 GFLOPS — a figure that exceeds the larger W5000's compute output.

The AMD FirePro W5000 uses the Pitcairn chip based on GCN 1.0 (Graphics Core Next). GCN was a ground-up redesign for AMD, built around a scalar architecture with compute-oriented design. The W5000 packs 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs into a 212 mm² die with 2,800 million transistors, giving it a density of 13.2M/mm². GCN's wider memory bus and higher ROP count make it particularly strong at memory-bound and fill-rate-bound tasks, but its clock speeds are lower — the memory runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the M2000M. The W5000's FP32 throughput of 1,267.2 GFLOPS is lower despite more shading units, reflecting GCN's different execution model.

Another key difference lies in the API support. The M2000M supports Vulkan 1.4, a significantly newer version than the W5000's Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the M2000M's DirectX 12 support is 11_0 while the W5000 supports 11_1. For modern compute workloads using Vulkan, the M2000M has a clear compatibility advantage.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M2000M | AMD FirePro W5000 |

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

| Chip | GM107 | Pitcairn |

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |

| Transistors | 1,870 million | 2,800 million |

| Die Size | 148 mm² | 212 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.6M/mm² | 13.2M/mm² |

| Base Clock | 1098 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 1137 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 640 | 768 |

| TMUs | 40 | 48 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 18.19 GPixel/s | 26.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 45.48 GTexel/s | 39.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,455.4 GFLOPS | 1,267.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | Not specified | 183 mm (7.2 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height |

The M2000M is a mobile-focused MXM module with no power connectors and a 55 W TDP, while the W5000 is a desktop single-slot card with a 75 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The W5000 has explicit display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), whereas the M2000M's outputs are portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it tells a measured but clear story.

Geekbench OpenCL: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 10057, defeating the AMD FirePro W5000's 9803 by 2.6%. This is a modest but real win for the M2000M, and it aligns with the FP32 compute advantage the Maxwell architecture holds — 1,455.4 GFLOPS versus 1,267.2 GFLOPS, a 14.8% gap in theoretical throughput. The fact that the actual performance delta is smaller than the raw FP32 difference suggests that the W5000's superior memory bandwidth (102.4 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s) partially compensates in this workload.

Contextualizing the result against the nearest rivals reinforces the closeness of this pairing. The M2000M's average benchmark score of 9832 puts it just 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9846) and 0.5% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1070 (9780). The W5000's average of 9803 places it 0.2% ahead of the GTX 1070 and 0.4% behind the Quadro 6000. In essence, both cards occupy the same performance band, trading blows within a 1% window around the 9800–9850 score range.

The M2000M's win in Geekbench OpenCL is the only benchmark where both cards were tested head-to-head, but the specification sheet suggests where each would pull ahead in other scenarios. The W5000's 45.1% higher pixel rate (26.40 versus 18.19 GPixel/s) and 27.7% higher memory bandwidth would likely translate to wins in fill-rate-limited tests, while the M2000M's higher texture rate (45.48 versus 39.60 GTexel/s) and 14.8% higher FP32 would favor compute-bound and texture-heavy workloads. The overall average scores — within 0.3% of each other — indicate that these strengths and weaknesses roughly cancel out across a broad benchmark suite.