AMD FirePro W5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data splits the two contenders almost perfectly down the middle, with each card claiming a decisive victory in one of the two available tests. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 takes the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 12,313 against the AMD FirePro W5100's 11,888, a margin of 3.5%. This is a modest but clear lead for the NVIDIA card in a compute-heavy workload that leans on raw shading throughput and memory bandwidth. The K4200's advantage here is consistent with its larger silicon and wider memory interface, though the gap is not overwhelming.

The tables turn dramatically in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the AMD FirePro W5100 posts a score of 13,805 against the K4200's 12,482. That is a 10.6% advantage for AMD, a far larger swing than NVIDIA's OpenCL win. This is a significant result: in an API-level workload that stresses driver efficiency and modern feature support, the older GCN 2.0 architecture outperforms Kepler by a wide margin. The W5100's Vulkan score is also notably higher than its own OpenCL result (13,805 vs. 11,888), suggesting the AMD card benefits disproportionately from the newer API. Meanwhile, the K4200's Vulkan score (12,482) is only marginally higher than its OpenCL result (12,313), indicating far less scaling from the API change.

The average benchmark scores reflect this split: the W5100 averages 12,847 across both tests, while the K4200 averages 12,398. That puts the AMD card 449 points ahead overall, a 3.6% aggregate advantage. Both cards sit at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, placing them in the same performance tier. The W5100's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon Pro 455 (12,831, a 0.1% difference) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 590 (12,830, also 0.1% behind), while the K4200's closest competitors include the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm (12,625, 1.8% ahead) and the AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT (12,710, 2.5% ahead). The K4200's nearest rival list shows it trailing the GTX 670 (12,773) by 2.9%, while the W5100 leads that same GTX 670 by 0.6% — a telling cross-reference that reinforces the AMD card's modest overall edge.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies, and the data reflects those choices. The AMD FirePro W5100 is built on the Bonaire chip using GCN 2.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 2,080 million transistors into a 160 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.0 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 uses the GK104 chip with Kepler architecture, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but with substantially more hardware: 3,540 million transistors spread across a 294 mm² die, for a density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The K4200 is physically much larger, but the W5100 is slightly denser, indicating a more efficient packing of transistors.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The W5100 has 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The K4200 counters with 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs — roughly 75% more shaders, 133% more TMUs, and double the ROPs. This is a massive theoretical throughput advantage for NVIDIA, reflected in peak FP32 performance: 2.107 TFLOPS for the K4200 versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS for the W5100, a 47% difference. Pixel rate also favors NVIDIA at 21.95 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s, and texture rate shows an even larger gap at 87.81 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s. Yet the actual benchmark scores do not mirror these large hardware advantages. The K4200's OpenCL win is only 3.5%, and it loses Vulkan by 10.6%. This indicates that raw compute resources are not the sole determinant of real-world performance, particularly under a modern API where AMD's architecture appears better optimized.

Clock speeds tell a partial story. The K4200 runs at a base clock of 771 MHz with a boost of 784 MHz, while the W5100's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. The memory clocks differ as well: the W5100's GDDR5 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the K4200's GDDR5 runs at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). The K4200 compensates with a 256-bit memory bus versus the W5100's 128-bit bus, yielding 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth against just 96.00 GB/s. That 80% bandwidth advantage is significant for certain workloads, yet the W5100 still wins the Vulkan test decisively, suggesting that API-level efficiencies can outweigh memory throughput.

Both cards support DirectX 12, but with different feature levels: the W5100 supports 12_0, while the K4200 only supports 11_0. This is a critical architectural distinction — the AMD card is fully DX12-compliant at the highest feature level for its generation, while NVIDIA's Kepler is limited to the older 11_0 feature set. OpenGL support is identical at 4.6, and Vulkan support is close (1.2.170 for AMD, 1.2.175 for NVIDIA). The W5100 also supports PCIe 3.0 x16, while the K4200 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16, which can affect data transfer rates in bandwidth-sensitive scenarios. Power requirements differ substantially: the W5100 is rated at 50 W TDP with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the K4200 is rated at 108 W TDP with a single 6-pin connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. Both are single-slot cards, but the W5100 is shorter at 173 mm versus the K4200's 241 mm.

The Verdict

The data paints a nuanced picture that defies a simple winner. If the priority is OpenCL compute performance, the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 holds a 3.5% advantage, and its vastly superior raw specifications — 1,344 shading units, 172.8 GB/s bandwidth, 2.107 TFLOPS — suggest it will handle traditional GPGPU workloads with more headroom. The K4200 also offers double the ROPs and more than double the TMUs, which could translate to better fill-rate-bound performance in certain professional applications.

However, for Vulkan-based workloads, the AMD FirePro W5100 is the clear choice, winning by 10.6%. This is a substantial margin, and it aligns with the W5100's superior DirectX 12 feature level (12_0 vs. 11_0) and more modern Vulkan driver support. The W5100 also achieves this at less than half the power draw (50 W vs. 108 W) and with no external power connector required, making it the more flexible option for space- and power-constrained systems. Its shorter length (173 mm vs. 241 mm) also increases case compatibility.

The aggregate average benchmark score favors the W5100 by 3.6% (12,847 vs. 12,398), and both cards sit at the 52nd percentile of all GPUs. For users running modern API-based workloads, the data supports the AMD card. For legacy OpenCL or fill-rate-heavy tasks, the NVIDIA card's hardware advantages are compelling. The tie in wins (1-1) and the close average scores suggest that the choice hinges primarily on the software environment rather than any absolute performance hierarchy. The W5100 is the better all-rounder in this specific benchmark set, but the K4200 is not far behind and offers superior raw compute resources that may age better in specific professional pipelines.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W5100 | NVIDIA Quadro K4200 |

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

| Chip | Bonaire | GK104 |

| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Kepler |

| Generation | FirePro GCN (Wx100) | Quadro Kepler (Kx200) |

| Transistors | 2,080 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.0M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 172.8 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 1,344 |

| TMUs | 48 | 112 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.88 GPixel/s | 21.95 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.64 GTexel/s | 87.81 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,428.5 GFLOPS | 2.107 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 108 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

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

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 173 mm (6.8 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2014-03-30 | 2014-07-21 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Quadro Fermi |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | Quadro Maxwell |

Note: The W5100's base and boost clocks are not listed, and neither card has a launch MSRP in the data. Both cards have equal height (111 mm, 4.4 inches) and are single-slot. Both use 4 GB GDDR5 memory and support OpenGL 4.6.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100 averages 12,847 across both tests, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 averages 12,398. That gives the AMD card a 449-point advantage, or roughly 3.6%.

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100 scores 13,805 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 12,482 for the NVIDIA Quadro K4200. The AMD card wins by 10.6%, which is its strongest result in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: What is the biggest hardware advantage for the NVIDIA card?

A: The K4200 has 1,344 shading units versus 768 for the W5100, and its memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s is 80% higher than the W5100's 96.00 GB/s. It also has double the ROPs (32 vs. 16) and more than double the TMUs (112 vs. 48).

Q: Does the AMD card support DirectX 12 at a higher feature level?

A: Yes. The FirePro W5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro K4200 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). This is a significant architectural difference that may explain the AMD card's stronger Vulkan performance.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100 has a 50 W TDP, requires no power connectors, and needs a 250 W suggested PSU. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has a 108 W TDP, requires one 6-pin power connector, and needs a 300 W suggested PSU.

Q: Which card is physically smaller?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100 is 173 mm (6.8 inches) long, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long. Both are single-slot cards with a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches).