AMD FirePro W5100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall victory for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M, which takes both benchmark disciplines in the head-to-head comparison. The most decisive margin comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the GTX 965M scores 14,509 against the FirePro W5100's 11,888, a 22% advantage. This is a substantial gap, indicating that the NVIDIA part holds a significant lead in compute workloads that leverage OpenCL acceleration.

The Vulkan results are much closer, with the GTX 965M scoring 14,299 versus 13,805 for the FirePro W5100, a 3.6% edge. While still a win for NVIDIA, the narrow delta suggests that in Vulkan-based applications, the two cards are nearly comparable, with architecture and driver optimizations likely playing a larger role than raw hardware differences. Across both tests, the GTX 965M's average benchmark score of 14,404 stands well above the FirePro W5100's 12,847, reinforcing the overall performance hierarchy.

Looking at the broader database context, the GTX 965M sits at the 56th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W5100 lands at the 52nd percentile. The GTX 965M's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 (average score 14,385, a 0.1% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN (14,373, 0.2% behind). This places the GTX 965M in a competitive bracket where it trades blows with integrated and older desktop parts. The FirePro W5100, by contrast, sits near the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (12,831, 0.1% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12,830, 0.1% behind), with the AMD Radeon 740M slightly ahead at 12,870 (a 0.2% edge for the FirePro). These figures show that while the FirePro W5100 is not a weak performer, it operates in a lower performance tier than the GTX 965M.

The wins tally confirms the sweep: the GTX 965M wins 2 benchmarks, and the FirePro W5100 wins 0. The data does not indicate any test in which the AMD card pulls ahead, making the overall assessment straightforward for users prioritizing raw compute and graphics scores.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different generations and design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M is built on the GM204 chip using the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, part of the GeForce 900M generation. It is manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with a transistor count of 5,200 million on a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The AMD FirePro W5100 uses the Bonaire chip with GCN 2.0 architecture, from the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation. It also uses a 28 nm TSMC process but packs only 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, yielding a similar density of 13.0M per mm². The die size difference is notable: the GTX 965M's chip is more than twice the physical area, which correlates with its higher shading unit count.

The GTX 965M features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro W5100 has 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. This halving of ROPs is a major architectural divergence, directly impacting pixel throughput. The recorded pixel rate for the GTX 965M is 30.40 GPixel/s, while the FirePro W5100 manages just 14.88 GPixel/s, a 2x difference. Texture rate follows a similar pattern: 60.80 GTexel/s for the NVIDIA part versus 44.64 GTexel/s for the AMD card. Floating-point performance (FP32) is rated at 1.946 TFLOPS for the GTX 965M and 1,428.5 GFLOPS (or about 1.43 TFLOPS) for the FirePro W5100, a 36% lead for NVIDIA.

Memory configurations differ as well. The GTX 965M ships with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), delivering 80.19 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W5100 offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but at a higher 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), yielding 96.00 GB/s. So the AMD card has double the capacity and 20% more bandwidth, which may benefit large datasets, but the GTX 965M compensates with a much faster compute core.

Clock speeds: the GTX 965M has a base clock of 924 MHz and a boost of 950 MHz. The FirePro W5100 lists no base or boost clock in the database, only its memory clock, so direct clock-to-clock comparison is not possible from the recorded data. The GTX 965M also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card has a slight API advantage in Vulkan version support.

The FirePro W5100 is a professional workstation card, evidenced by its single-slot design, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, and a 50 W TDP with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GTX 965M is a mobile GPU on an MXM Module with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs, reflecting its laptop-oriented design. Both are end-of-life products, with the GTX 965M released in January 2015 and the FirePro W5100 in March 2014.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M scores 14,509 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 22% higher than the AMD FirePro W5100's 11,888. This is the largest performance gap between the two in any benchmark.

Q: Is the AMD FirePro W5100 competitive in Vulkan workloads?

A: Yes, the FirePro W5100 scores 13,805 in Geekbench Vulkan, only 3.6% behind the GTX 965M's 14,299. In Vulkan-specific tasks, the two cards are nearly matched.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The GTX 965M has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the FirePro W5100 has 4 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but the FirePro W5100 has higher bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s versus 80.19 GB/s for the GTX 965M.

Q: What are the shading unit counts?

A: The GTX 965M has 1,024 shading units, while the FirePro W5100 has 768. This translates to a higher FP32 throughput for the NVIDIA card: 1.946 TFLOPS versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS.

Q: Which card is better suited for a workstation with multiple displays?

A: The FirePro W5100 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, a single-slot form factor, and a 50 W TDP, making it a professional card designed for multi-monitor setups. The GTX 965M's display outputs are dependent on the portable device it is installed in.

Q: What is the difference in pixel fill rate?

A: The GTX 965M delivers 30.40 GPixel/s, while the FirePro W5100 delivers 14.88 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA card has double the pixel rate due to its 32 ROPs versus 16 ROPs on the AMD part.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M as the stronger performer in raw compute and graphics throughput. It wins both recorded tests, with a 22% lead in OpenCL and a modest 3.6% lead in Vulkan. Its higher shading unit count, doubled ROPs, and larger die with more transistors all contribute to this outcome. Users who need maximum performance in OpenCL-heavy applications should choose the GTX 965M without hesitation.

The AMD FirePro W5100, however, is not without its own merits. It offers 4 GB of memory, which is double the GTX 965M's capacity, and it has higher memory bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s. For workloads that are memory-bound rather than compute-bound, this could be an advantage. The FirePro W5100 also comes in a single-slot professional form factor with four DisplayPort outputs, making it a practical choice for multi-monitor professional environments where driver certification and display flexibility matter more than peak FLOPS.

For Vulkan-based applications, the gap narrows considerably, and the FirePro W5100's 3.6% deficit is likely imperceptible in real-world use. The GTX 965M's higher percentile ranking (56th versus 52nd) and superior average benchmark score (14,404 versus 12,847) confirm that it is the higher-performing part overall. The verdict is straightforward: the GTX 965M for compute performance, the FirePro W5100 for memory capacity and professional display features.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 965M | AMD FirePro W5100 |

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

| Chip | GM204 | Bonaire |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 2.0 |

| Generation | GeForce 900M | FirePro GCN (Wx100) |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 2,080 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.1M / mm² | 13.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 924 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 950 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.19 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 1024 | 768 |

| TMUs | 64 | 48 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 30.40 GPixel/s | 14.88 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 60.80 GTexel/s | 44.64 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1.946 TFLOPS | 1,428.5 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 50 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | None | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| OpenGL Support | 4.6 | 4.6 |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions (Length) | Not specified | 173 mm (6.8 inches) |

| Dimensions (Height) | Not specified | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2015-01-08 | 2014-03-30 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800M | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | GeForce 10 Mobile | Radeon Pro Polaris |

| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |