AMD FirePro W5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5100 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 are two end-of-life professional GPUs from 2014 that now sit at nearly the same point in the historical performance ladder, and the database shows a clear pattern: the FirePro W5100 wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks, including a large margin in the Vulkan test, while the Quadro K2200 counters with modest hardware advantages in pixel throughput and feature-level API support. Both cards share a 4 GB GDDR5 buffer on a 128-bit bus, both draw power exclusively from the PCIe slot, and both occupy a single slot, which makes this a comparison decided by compute throughput and driver-era software support rather than capacity or form factor. The analysis below walks through the recorded data field by field.

The Verdict

The recorded results favor the FirePro W5100 for anyone choosing between these two cards today. It leads the average benchmark score, 12847 against 10761, and it wins both head-to-head tests: geekbench_opencl by 4 percent (11888 versus 11431) and geekbench_vulkan by a decisive 36.8 percent (13805 versus 10090). The W5100 also sits at the 52nd percentile against all GPUs in the database, three points above the K2200's 49th percentile, so the aggregate picture is consistent with the per-test results.

The Quadro K2200 remains the better pick in a narrower set of circumstances. Its pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s exceeds the W5100's 14.88 GPixel/s, and its Vulkan driver support reaches version 1.4 versus 1.2.170 on the AMD card, meaning software that requires a newer Vulkan runtime will only run on the NVIDIA side. Its slightly shorter rival set also places it close to the Radeon Pro 450, GeForce GTX 560 Ti, GeForce MX350, and Radeon RX 6600S, all within roughly 1 percent of its average score, which indicates the K2200's performance tier is densely populated by later low-power parts.

For compute-oriented workloads, OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarking, and raw shader throughput, the data points to the W5100. For higher pixel fill scenarios and newer Vulkan feature requirements, the K2200 is the defensible choice.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs were fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process, but they represent entirely different architectural philosophies. The FirePro W5100 uses the Bonaire chip implementing AMD's GCN 2.0 architecture, the generation AMD labeled FirePro GCN (Wx100). The Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip implementing NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, placed in the Quadro Kepler (Kx200) generation despite the Maxwell silicon.

The Bonaire die is physically larger and denser: 160 mm² with 2,080 million transistors (13.0M per mm²) against GM107's 148 mm² with 1,870 million transistors (12.6M per mm²). AMD spent that larger die on more compute resources: 768 shading units and 48 TMUs, versus 640 shading units and 40 TMUs on the K2200. Both chips have 16 ROPs, so back-end output capability is identical on paper.

Clock behavior differs in kind. The K2200 has explicit base and boost clocks recorded at 1046 MHz and 1124 MHz, while the W5100's core clocks are not recorded in the database; its memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the K2200. The net effect on theoretical throughput is nearly a wash in raw compute: 1,428.5 GFLOPS FP32 for the W5100 against 1,438.7 GFLOPS for the K2200, a fraction of a percent apart despite the AMD card's larger shader count. Texture rates are effectively tied at 44.64 versus 44.96 GTexel/s.

Lineage also differs. The W5100 succeeded the FirePro Terascale line and was itself followed by Radeon Pro Polaris. The K2200 succeeded Quadro Fermi and was followed by Quadro Maxwell. Neither card has RT cores or tensor cores, as expected for this era.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head record is a clean sweep for the FirePro W5100, two wins to zero.

The OpenCL test is close. The W5100 scores 11888 in geekbench_opencl against 11431 for the K2200, a 4 percent margin. Given that the two cards' theoretical FP32 rates differ by well under 1 percent, this result suggests AMD's GCN scheduling extracts slightly more real-world compute throughput from effectively equal hardware on paper.

The Vulkan test is not close. The W5100 scores 13805 in geekbench_vulkan versus 10090 for the K2200, a 36.8 percent gap, the largest divergence anywhere in this comparison. This is somewhat counterintuitive given that the K2200 nominally supports the newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170), and it indicates that API version support and API performance are independent axes: the AMD card delivers far higher measured throughput in the Vulkan compute workload even while exposing an older feature set.

Aggregating both tests produces the 12847 versus 10761 average score split, which slots the W5100 among the Radeon Pro 455, GeForce GTX 590, Radeon 740M, and GeForce GTX 670, all within 0.6 percent of its average. The K2200's neighborhood, the Radeon Pro 450, GTX 560 Ti, MX350, and RX 6600S, sits roughly 2,000 points lower, confirming that the W5100 competes one tier up in the database rankings despite the near-identical theoretical specs.

Specification Differences

The fields where the two cards actually diverge, everything else being equal, are as follows.

• GPU and architecture: Bonaire (GCN 2.0) versus GM107 (Maxwell).
• Die metrics: 160 mm² and 2,080 million transistors versus 148 mm² and 1,870 million.
• Shading units and TMUs: 768 and 48 versus 640 and 40.
• Core clocks: not recorded for the W5100; 1046 MHz base and 1124 MHz boost for the K2200.
• Memory clocks and bandwidth: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) and 96.00 GB/s versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and 80.19 GB/s, a 20 percent bandwidth advantage for the W5100 on an identical 128-bit GDDR5 4 GB configuration.
• Pixel rate: 14.88 GPixel/s versus 17.98 GPixel/s, favoring the K2200 by roughly 21 percent.
• TDP: 50 W for the W5100 versus 68 W for the K2200, with the same 250 W suggested PSU for both.
• Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 on the W5100 versus PCIe 2.0 x16 on the K2200.
• Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.2 versus 1x DVI plus 2x DisplayPort 1.2.
• DirectX feature level: 12_0 versus 12 (11_0).
• Vulkan: 1.2.170 versus 1.4. OpenGL is 4.6 on both.
• Length: 173 mm versus 202 mm; height is 111 mm on both.
• Release date: the W5100 shipped first, in March 2014, with the K2200 following in July 2014.

Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors, both are end-of-life, and neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster overall?

A: The FirePro W5100. It averages 12847 across the recorded benchmarks versus 10761 for the K2200, wins both head-to-head tests, and ranks three percentile points higher against all GPUs in the database (52nd versus 49th).

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: The W5100 scores 13805 in geekbench_vulkan against 10090 for the K2200, a 36.8 percent advantage, the biggest margin in the comparison.

Q: Does the Quadro K2200 win anything?

A: Yes, on paper. Its pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s beats the W5100's 14.88 GPixel/s, and it supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 at the 11_0 level versus the W5100's Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12_0, though it loses every recorded benchmark.

Q: Do these cards need external power?

A: No. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors. The W5100 draws up to 50 W and the K2200 up to 68 W, and both carry a 250 W suggested PSU rating.

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: Both have 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the W5100's memory runs faster (1500 MHz, 6 Gbps effective) delivering 96.00 GB/s, while the K2200 delivers 80.19 GB/s.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life. The W5100 was released in March 2014 and succeeded by Radeon Pro Polaris; the K2200 followed in July 2014 and was succeeded by Quadro Maxwell.