AMD FirePro W5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A Comparison

# AMD FirePro W5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A

The AMD FirePro W5100 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A are two end-of-life mobile/workstation-oriented GPUs from different ecosystems. The benchmark data shows a remarkably close contest: the NVIDIA card edges out the AMD card in the only shared test, with a 0.9% margin, yet the AMD card holds a higher average benchmark score when including its full test suite. The FirePro W5100 lands at the 52nd percentile among all GPUs, while the GTX 960A sits at the 51st percentile, placing both in the middle of the performance spectrum. Their real differences emerge not from raw compute parity but from memory capacity, API support, and physical form factor.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A wins the sole directly comparable benchmark — Geekbench OpenCL — scoring 11998 against the FirePro W5100's 11888. That is a 0.9% advantage, a margin that falls well within typical run-to-run variance. However, the GTX 960A's overall average benchmark score is 11998, which is its only recorded result, while the FirePro W5100 averages 12847 across two tests. This means the AMD card's additional Vulkan result (13805) propels its average higher than the NVIDIA card's single OpenCL score, even though the NVIDIA card wins the head-to-head OpenCL test.

The FirePro W5100 also demonstrates a clear advantage in API versatility. It supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the GTX 960A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD card's Vulkan score of 13805 represents its strongest benchmark result, suggesting it handles modern graphics APIs more effectively than its OpenCL score would indicate. The NVIDIA card, by contrast, has no recorded Vulkan benchmark, so its API performance beyond OpenCL remains unquantified in this data.

For memory-bound workloads, the FirePro W5100 offers a decisive capacity advantage: 4 GB of GDDR5 versus the GTX 960A's 2 GB. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but the AMD card's memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the NVIDIA card's 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) providing 80.19 GB/s. The FirePro W5100 thus wins on both memory capacity and bandwidth, a meaningful edge for texture-heavy or large-dataset workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100, with an average benchmark score of 12847 across its two tests, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A's average of 11998 from its single recorded test.

Q: Does the NVIDIA card outperform the AMD card in any shared benchmark?

A: Yes. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 960A scores 11998 versus the FirePro W5100's 11888, a 0.9% advantage for the NVIDIA card.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two cards?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, a 2 GB difference in the AMD card's favor.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics API versions?

A: The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card has a newer Vulkan version, but the AMD card has a higher DirectX feature level.

Q: How do the two cards compare in terms of transistor density?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100 has a transistor density of 13.0M per mm², while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A has a density of 12.6M per mm², a minor difference favoring AMD.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate difference?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A achieves 18.82 GPixel/s, while the AMD FirePro W5100 achieves 14.88 GPixel/s, giving the NVIDIA card a 26% advantage in pixel throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A scores 11998, while the AMD FirePro W5100 scores 11888. The deltaPct of -0.9% (negative indicating the AMD card is behind) means the NVIDIA card leads by approximately 110 points. To put this in perspective, the FirePro W5100's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 455 at 12831 (0.1% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 at 12830 (0.1% ahead), while the GTX 960A sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 at 11960 (0.3% behind) and the AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT at 11842 (1.3% ahead). This places both cards in a tightly clustered performance band where 0.9% differences are common.

The AMD card's Vulkan result of 13805, while not directly comparable to the NVIDIA card (which has no Vulkan score), suggests that the FirePro W5100's compute capabilities are not fully captured by its OpenCL performance alone. The Vulkan score is 16% higher than the OpenCL score for the same card, indicating strong API-specific optimization. The GTX 960A's single score of 11998 becomes its entire benchmark identity, whereas the FirePro W5100's average of 12847 benefits from this additional data point.

When examining texture and pixel rates, the NVIDIA card leads in both categories: 47.04 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s for AMD, and 18.82 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s. These differences reflect the NVIDIA card's higher clock speeds — a base of 1097 MHz and boost of 1176 MHz — while the AMD card's clocks are not listed in the data. The GTX 960A's 26% advantage in pixel fill rate is the largest single-metric gap between the two cards, suggesting it handles rasterization-heavy tasks more efficiently.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification category. The AMD FirePro W5100 uses a 28 nm Bonaire chip with 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, while the NVIDIA GTX 960A uses a 28 nm GM107 chip with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. Transistor density is 13.0M per mm² for AMD versus 12.6M per mm² for NVIDIA. Clock speeds differ significantly: the NVIDIA card has explicit base and boost clocks (1097 MHz / 1176 MHz), while the AMD card lists no base or boost values, only a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the NVIDIA card's 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity is 4 GB for AMD versus 2 GB for NVIDIA, both GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s. The compute units differ: AMD has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while NVIDIA has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Floating-point performance is 1,428.5 GFLOPS for AMD versus 1.505 TFLOPS for NVIDIA, a slight edge for the NVIDIA card. Power consumption is 50 W for AMD versus 75 W for NVIDIA, with the AMD card using a single-slot design and the NVIDIA card using an MXM module form factor. The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD versus MXM-B (3.0) for NVIDIA.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro W5100 is built on GCN 2.0 architecture, a member of the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A uses Maxwell architecture from the GeForce 900A generation. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process, but their transistor budgets and die sizes differ: AMD packs 2,080 million transistors into 160 mm², while NVIDIA fits 1,870 million into 148 mm². This gives AMD a modest density advantage of 13.0M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm².

The AMD card's GCN 2.0 design emphasizes compute throughput with 768 shading units and 48 texture mapping units, while the NVIDIA card's Maxwell architecture uses 640 shading units and 40 TMUs. Both have 16 ROPs. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (12_0), indicating full feature-level 12_0 support, whereas NVIDIA's DirectX 12 (11_0) suggests a lower feature level. Vulkan support differs: AMD lists 1.2.170, while NVIDIA lists 1.4, giving NVIDIA a newer Vulkan version. OpenGL is identical at 4.6 for both.

Display outputs differ substantially: the AMD card provides 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the NVIDIA card's outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its MXM form factor. The AMD card is a single-slot PCIe card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the NVIDIA card is an MXM module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The AMD card measures 173 mm in length and 111 mm in height, while the NVIDIA card has no listed dimensions.

The Verdict

The data presents two closely matched GPUs with different strengths. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A wins the only directly comparable benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 0.9%, and also leads in pixel fill rate (18.82 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s), texture fill rate (47.04 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute (1.505 TFLOPS versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS). Its Maxwell architecture delivers higher clock speeds and a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170), making it the stronger choice for scenarios where raw rasterization throughput matters most.

The AMD FirePro W5100 counters with double the memory capacity (4 GB versus 2 GB), higher memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s), a higher average benchmark score (12847 versus 11998), and a better DirectX 12 feature level (12_0 versus 11_0). Its Vulkan score of 13805 demonstrates untapped compute potential beyond its OpenCL result, and its lower TDP of 50 W versus 75 W makes it more power-efficient. The 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs also make it a more flexible option for multi-display workstation setups.

For users prioritizing memory capacity, API feature levels, or power efficiency, the AMD FirePro W5100 is the data-supported choice. For those needing maximum pixel throughput or relying primarily on OpenCL workloads, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960A's 0.9% edge in the head-to-head test makes it marginally faster. Given that the AMD card sits at the 52nd percentile versus NVIDIA's 51st, and the AMD card's average score is 7% higher, the overall data leans slightly toward the FirePro W5100 as the more versatile option, despite losing the single direct benchmark.