AMD FirePro W5000 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5000 and NVIDIA Quadro P4000 represent two distinct eras of professional workstation graphics, and the benchmark data reflects a generational chasm rather than a close competition. The single shared benchmark result, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the Quadro P4000 scoring 36,212 against the FirePro W5000’s 9,803, a decisive 72.9% advantage for the NVIDIA card. This is not a marginal victory; it is a complete overhaul of compute performance. The data paints a clear picture of technological progression, where the newer architecture does not merely edge out the older one but redefines the performance ceiling for the segment.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a rout. The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 delivers a score of 36,212, while the AMD FirePro W5000 manages just 9,803. The deltaPct of -72.9% for the FirePro W5000 quantifies the scale of this deficit. In practical terms, the Quadro P4000 is almost 3.7 times faster in this compute-oriented workload, a gap that will translate into dramatically reduced render times and faster simulation processing for professionals. This is the headline number, and it dominates the entire comparison.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the Quadro P4000 has a rich dataset across multiple tests, including Passmark and 3DMark suites. Its Passmark G3D score is 11,466, and its GPU Compute score is 4,913, indicating robust performance in both graphical and general-purpose compute tasks. The FirePro W5000, by contrast, has only the single OpenCL result in its record, which limits the scope of direct comparison but does not soften the impact of the OpenCL blowout. The NVIDIA card also shows versatility with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 41,786, suggesting strong performance in modern, low-level API workloads. The older AMD card, with its GCN 1.0 architecture, simply does not have the raw throughput to compete in these metrics.

The win count is entirely one-sided, with the Quadro P4000 taking the sole head-to-head victory. There are no benchmark results where the FirePro W5000 comes out ahead, making this a straightforward, if lopsided, comparison. The data does not suggest any area where the AMD card can claim parity, let alone superiority. It is a clear-cut case of newer technology superseding older hardware across the board.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental divergence lies in the manufacturing process and chip design. The AMD FirePro W5000 is built on TSMC’s 28 nm node, featuring the Pitcairn chip with 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die. This yields a transistor density of 13.2 million per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 uses the GP104 chip on a much more advanced 16 nm process, packing 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, for a density of 22.9 million per mm². The jump to a smaller node is the primary enabler of the P4000’s massive performance advantage, allowing for more than double the transistor count in a reasonably sized package.

The architectural philosophies also differ significantly. The FirePro W5000 is based on GCN 1.0, AMD’s first-generation Graphics Core Next design. This architecture laid the groundwork for AMD’s compute-focused approach but is now over a decade old. The Quadro P4000, on the other hand, uses NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, a mature and highly efficient design that brought significant improvements in clock speeds and compute efficiency. The clock speeds tell the story: the FirePro W5000 has no listed base or boost clocks, while the Quadro P4000 runs at a base of 1202 MHz and boosts to 1480 MHz. Higher clocks, combined with more execution units, create a multiplicative performance advantage.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The FirePro W5000 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro P4000 provides 8 GB of GDDR5 on the same 256-bit bus, but with a much higher effective speed of 7.6 Gbps, resulting in 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. This is more than double the memory bandwidth, which is critical for large datasets and high-resolution textures common in professional workloads. The P4000 also supports newer API standards, including DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W5000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

There is no benchmark category in the data where the AMD FirePro W5000 wins. Its single OpenCL score is far behind, and it lacks any other recorded results to suggest strengths in other areas. The data indicates that the FirePro W5000 is a product of its time, suited for basic professional visualization tasks of the early 2010s, but it is thoroughly outclassed by modern standards.

The NVIDIA Quadro P4000, conversely, wins across every measurable dimension. Its compute capabilities, as shown by the OpenCL and Passmark GPU Compute scores, make it suitable for GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific computing, and complex simulation. Its high Vulkan score suggests strong performance in modern game engines and real-time visualization tools. The 8 GB memory capacity is a significant advantage for professionals working with large 3D scenes or training machine learning models, where memory capacity often becomes a bottleneck. The higher pixel rate of 94.72 GPixel/s and texture rate of 165.8 GTexel/s, compared to the FirePro W5000’s 26.40 GPixel/s and 39.60 GTexel/s, indicate vastly superior fill rates for high-resolution displays and complex geometry.

In a professional workflow, the choice is clear. The Quadro P4000 is designed to handle the demands of contemporary software, from CAD to video editing to AI inference. The FirePro W5000 would struggle with modern applications, and its 2 GB memory is a severe limitation. The data-driven verdict is that the Quadro P4000 is the only viable option for serious work, while the FirePro W5000 is relegated to legacy systems or very light duties.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 outperforms the AMD FirePro W5000 by a margin of 72.9% in the only shared benchmark, and its architecture is superior in every quantifiable way. The P4000 offers more memory, higher bandwidth, more shading units (1,792 vs 768), more texture mapping units (112 vs 48), and more ROPs (64 vs 32). Its FP32 performance of 5.304 TFLOPS dwarfs the FirePro W5000’s 1,267.2 GFLOPS. There is no scenario where the FirePro W5000 emerges as the recommended choice based on performance data.

For professionals seeking a new or upgrade card, the Quadro P4000 is the clear pick. It delivers the performance needed for current-generation workstation applications. The FirePro W5000, with its end-of-life status and a release date from 2012, should only be considered for legacy system compatibility, not for new builds or performance-critical tasks. The benchmark results indicate that the Quadro P4000 is a competent mid-range workstation card, while the FirePro W5000 is a historical artifact. The verdict is a decisive win for the NVIDIA card, and the data offers no counterargument.

FAQ

Q: How significant is the performance difference between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro W5000 scores 9,803. This represents a 72.9% advantage for the Quadro P4000, indicating a massive generational leap in compute performance.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro P4000 has a bandwidth of 243.3 GB/s, compared to the FirePro W5000’s 102.4 GB/s. The P4000 also has 8 GB of memory versus 2 GB on the AMD card.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W5000 win in any benchmark category?

A: No. In the sole head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P4000 wins. The FirePro W5000 has no recorded wins in the data.

Q: What is the architectural difference in process nodes?

A: The FirePro W5000 is built on a 28 nm process with 2,800 million transistors, while the Quadro P4000 uses a 16 nm process with 7,200 million transistors. This allows the NVIDIA card to have a higher transistor density of 22.9M per mm² versus 13.2M per mm².

Q: Which card supports newer API versions?

A: The Quadro P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The FirePro W5000 has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro P4000 has a TDP of 105 W, requires a single 6-pin connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W5000 | NVIDIA Quadro P4000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 16 nm |

| Transistors | 2,800 million | 7,200 million |

| Die Size | 212 mm² | 314 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 22.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | N/A | 1202 MHz |

| Boost Clock | N/A | 1480 MHz |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Speed | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) | 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 243.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1792 |

| TMUs | 48 | 112 |

| ROPs | 32 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 26.40 GPixel/s | 94.72 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 39.60 GTexel/s | 165.8 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,267.2 GFLOPS | 5.304 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 105 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

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

| Release Date | 2012-08-06 | 2017-02-05 |