AMD FirePro W5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The data splits cleanly along workload type. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 wins both recorded benchmark categories, but the margin tells the real story. In the OpenCL compute test, the Quadro M2000 scores 14588 against the FirePro W5100's 11888, a 22.7% advantage. That is a substantial gap for any professional workload that leans on general-purpose GPU compute, such as rendering, simulation, or data-parallel processing.

The Vulkan test narrows considerably. The Quadro M2000 posts 14475, while the FirePro W5100 manages 13805, a 4.9% lead for the NVIDIA card. This suggests that in graphics-API-driven tasks, the two cards are much closer in practical performance. The FirePro W5100's GCN architecture holds up better in driver-optimized graphics paths than it does in raw OpenCL throughput.

The M2000's wins are consistent across both recorded tests, meaning it is not a case of one card being specialized for compute and the other for graphics. The Quadro simply outperforms in both, but the degree of dominance varies. For users whose primary concern is OpenCL acceleration, the M2000 is clearly the stronger option. For Vulkan-based workloads, the difference is present but less decisive.

The FirePro W5100 does not win any benchmark in the database. Its only comparative strength lies in its lower power draw, but that is a specification difference, not a performance win. The recorded data shows zero benchmark victories for the AMD card.

The Verdict

The database points to the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 for nearly every use case. It holds a 22.7% lead in OpenCL and a 4.9% lead in Vulkan. Its average benchmark score sits at 14532, placing it in the 56th percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro W5100 averages 12847, which lands in the 52nd percentile. The M2000 also sits in a higher performance neighborhood relative to its nearest rivals.

For compute-heavy professional workflows, the choice is unambiguous. The M2000's OpenCL advantage is large enough to translate into visibly shorter render times or faster simulation runs. The FirePro W5100 would be acceptable for light compute duties, but the data shows it falls behind by more than a fifth in that category.

For Vulkan-based graphics work, the M2000 still wins, but the FirePro W5100 is not embarrassed. A 4.9% gap means that in real-world applications, the difference might be noticeable only in frame-rate counters or benchmark logs, not in day-to-day usability. If a user already owns a FirePro W5100 and primarily runs Vulkan workloads, the upgrade pressure is modest.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the M2000's average score of 14532 sits just 0.9% above the GeForce GTX 965M (14404) and 1% above the Radeon RX Vega 11 (14385). It is 1.1% ahead of the GeForce GTX TITAN (14373) but trails the Radeon RX 5500 XT (14692) by 1.1%. The FirePro W5100's 12847 average is nearly identical to the Radeon Pro 455 (12831, 0.1% ahead) and the GeForce GTX 590 (12830, 0.1% ahead), while it sits 0.2% below the Radeon 740M (12870) and 0.6% above the GeForce GTX 670 (12773).

The verdict: for any new purchase, the Quadro M2000 is the better card according to every benchmark in the database. The FirePro W5100 only makes sense if its 50 W power draw is a hard constraint, since the M2000 draws 75 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The OpenCL test is the standout result. The Quadro M2000's 14588 score versus the FirePro W5100's 11888 represents a 22.7% delta. This is the kind of margin that separates a comfortably usable compute card from one that will struggle with demanding OpenCL kernels. The M2000's Maxwell 2.0 architecture with 768 shading units and 1.786 TFLOPS of FP32 throughput clearly handles compute workloads more efficiently than the GCN 2.0 part with its 1,428.5 GFLOPS.

The Vulkan result is closer but still favors NVIDIA. The M2000 scores 14475, and the FirePro W5100 scores 13805, a 4.9% delta. Interestingly, the FirePro W5100's Vulkan score of 13805 is actually higher than its OpenCL score of 11888, a 16.1% improvement within its own results. The M2000's Vulkan score of 14475 is only 0.8% below its OpenCL score of 14588. This suggests the AMD card benefits more from the Vulkan API's lower overhead, while the NVIDIA card is already near its performance ceiling regardless of API.

In terms of raw throughput specifications, the M2000 posts a pixel rate of 37.22 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 55.82 GTexel/s. The FirePro W5100 manages 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s. The pixel rate gap is particularly large, reflecting the M2000's 32 ROPs versus the FirePro W5100's 16 ROPs. Memory bandwidth also favors the M2000 at 105.8 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, though both use 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

The M2000's clock behavior is documented with a base of 796 MHz and a boost of 1163 MHz. The FirePro W5100 does not have base or boost clocks recorded in the database, only a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), so direct clock-to-clock comparison is not possible from the data.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 is significantly faster, scoring 14588 versus the AMD FirePro W5100's 11888, a 22.7% advantage.

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

A: The Quadro M2000 leads again with 14475 against 13805, a 4.9% margin. This is a much narrower gap than the OpenCL result.

Q: Which card has more ROPs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has 32 ROPs, double the FirePro W5100's 16 ROPs. This contributes to the M2000's higher pixel rate of 37.22 GPixel/s versus 14.88 GPixel/s.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX feature level?

A: No. The Quadro M2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro W5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0). The M2000 also lists a newer Vulkan version at 1.4 versus 1.2.170 for the AMD card.

Q: Which card draws less power?

A: The AMD FirePro W5100 has a 50 W TDP, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000 has a 75 W TDP. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and require no more than a 250 W power supply.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores rank relative to all GPUs?

A: The Quadro M2000 has an average score of 14532 and sits in the 56th percentile. The FirePro W5100 averages 12847 and sits in the 52nd percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different design philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro M2000 uses the GM206 chip built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. It is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with 2,940 million transistors on a 228 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.9M per mm². The AMD FirePro W5100 uses the Bonaire chip on GCN 2.0, also 28 nm at TSMC, but with 2,080 million transistors on a smaller 160 mm² die, giving a density of 13.0M per mm².

Both cards have 768 shading units and 48 TMUs, but the M2000 doubles the ROP count at 32 versus 16. The M2000's Maxwell architecture delivers 1.786 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the FirePro W5100 produces 1,428.5 GFLOPS. Neither card has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

The M2000 belongs to the Quadro Maxwell generation (Mx000 series), succeeding Quadro Kepler and preceding Quadro Pascal. The FirePro W5100 comes from the FirePro GCN generation (Wx100 series), succeeding FirePro Terascale and preceding Radeon Pro Polaris.

The M2000 lists base and boost clocks (796 MHz and 1163 MHz respectively), while the FirePro W5100 has no recorded base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The M2000's memory clock is 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective).

Both cards are built by TSMC on the same 28 nm process, which means the architectural efficiency differences stem from the designs themselves, not the manufacturing node.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M2000 | AMD FirePro W5100 |

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

| Chip | GM206 | Bonaire |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 2.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) | FirePro GCN (Wx100) |

| Transistors | 2,940 million | 2,080 million |

| Die Size | 228 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.9M / mm² | 13.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 796 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 1163 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Clock | 1653 MHz (6.6 Gbps effective) | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 105.8 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 37.22 GPixel/s | 14.88 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 55.82 GTexel/s | 44.64 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1.786 TFLOPS | 1,428.5 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 50 W |

| Length | 201 mm (7.9 inches) | 173 mm (6.8 inches) |

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2016-04-07 | 2014-03-30 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Quadro Pascal | Radeon Pro Polaris |

| Average Benchmark | 14532 | 12847 |

| Percentile | 56 | 52 |

Shared specifications include 4 GB GDDR5 memory, a 128-bit memory bus, 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, single-slot cooling, no power connectors, a 250 W suggested PSU, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, OpenGL 4.6 support, and end-of-life production status.