GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and AMD FirePro W5130M are both end-of-life professional graphics cards, but they come from very different eras of GPU design. The Quadro 4000 is a desktop workstation card from 2010, while the FirePro W5130M is a mobile part from 2015. Benchmark data shows they perform remarkably close in raw compute, yet their architectural approaches are generations apart. This analysis breaks down where each card stands based strictly on the provided facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it is a narrow victory for the NVIDIA Quadro 4000. The Quadro scores 4979 points, while the FirePro W5130M scores 4904 points. That gives the NVIDIA card a 1.5% lead. In practical terms, this is a statistical tie, a difference of 75 points out of roughly 5000 is well within run-to-run variance for OpenCL workloads. The data shows the Quadro 4000 winning the single head-to-head benchmark, giving it a 1–0 win record, but the margin is so slim that it does not indicate a meaningful performance advantage.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces how close these two are. The Quadro 4000 sits within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, which scores 4970, and is 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M360. On the other side, the FirePro W5130M is within 0.1% of the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, and 0.5% behind the Radeon R7 M265. Both cards land in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier. The Quadro’s 1.5% edge over the FirePro is smaller than the differences between either card and several of its own nearest rivals.

Looking at the numbers more carefully, the FirePro W5130M actually has a higher theoretical compute ceiling. Its FP32 throughput is 947.2 GFLOPS, nearly double the Quadro 4000’s 486.4 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s also exceed the Quadro’s 7.600 GPixel/s and 15.20 GTexel/s. Yet in the OpenCL benchmark, the FirePro does not translate that raw horsepower into a win. This suggests the Quadro’s older Fermi architecture is more efficient at executing the specific OpenCL workload tested, or that driver maturity plays a significant role. The benchmark result is what matters: the Quadro 4000 wins, but only by a hair.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different GPU architectures. The Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip, based on NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The FirePro W5130M uses the Tropo chip, based on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, on a 28 nm process, also at TSMC. The process node difference is substantial, 40 nm versus 28 nm, which directly affects transistor density. The Quadro packs 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a density of 5.9M transistors per mm². The FirePro has 1,500 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die, achieving 12.2M per mm². That is more than double the density, reflecting the newer manufacturing process.

Core counts also differ significantly. The Quadro has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, but only 16 ROPs. So AMD’s card has twice the shader count and the same number of texture units, but half the ROPs. This explains the mixed benchmark picture: the FirePro should excel at compute-heavy shader work, while the Quadro’s higher ROP count gives it an edge in pixel throughput relative to its shader array. The FirePro’s clocks are also higher, a base of 900 MHz and boost of 925 MHz, versus the Quadro, which has no listed base or boost clock. That clock advantage, combined with double the shaders, is why the FirePro’s FP32 figure is so much higher.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity but different in bandwidth. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5. The Quadro uses a 256-bit bus with memory clocked at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), delivering 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro uses a 128-bit bus with memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s. So the Quadro has nearly 40% more memory bandwidth despite being older hardware. The FirePro compensates with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. API support also favors the FirePro: it supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the Quadro only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support listed. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

From the data, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is the safer pick for anyone who relies on legacy OpenCL workloads where its 1.5% benchmark lead holds. It also offers substantially higher memory bandwidth at 89.86 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, which matters for texture-heavy or large-dataset tasks. The Quadro’s 256-bit bus is a genuine advantage. Its single-slot design and 142 W TDP make it a straightforward desktop install, with a 300 W suggested PSU and one 6-pin connector. It is a proven, if old, workstation card.

The AMD FirePro W5130M is the better choice on paper for compute-throughput-bound tasks that can leverage its 512 shading units and 947.2 GFLOPS FP32 performance. It also has modern API support, including Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Quadro entirely lacks. Its 28 nm process means it runs cooler and denser, though no TDP or slot width is listed. The FirePro is also a mobile part, so it fits in laptops where the Quadro’s 241 mm length cannot. If the workload is modern, Vulkan-capable, and shader-heavy, the FirePro’s raw specs suggest it should pull ahead, even if the one benchmark we have does not show it.

Who should pick which? Strictly from the data, the Quadro 4000 wins the only measured benchmark and offers more bandwidth. The FirePro W5130M wins on architecture modernity, shader count, and API features. For a builder with a desktop workstation running older OpenCL applications, the Quadro is the proven quantity. For a mobile user or someone targeting Vulkan workloads, the FirePro is the forward-looking choice. Neither card is competitive by modern standards, both sit in the 29th percentile, but between these two, the Quadro’s benchmark win is the only direct evidence of superiority.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979, while the AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904. The Quadro wins by 1.5%.

Q: Does the FirePro W5130M have more raw compute power than the Quadro 4000?

A: Yes. The FirePro has 512 shading units and delivers 947.2 GFLOPS FP32, while the Quadro has 256 shading units and 486.4 GFLOPS FP32.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 4000. It has a 256-bit bus with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth, versus the FirePro’s 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s.

Q: What API support does the FirePro W5130M have that the Quadro 4000 lacks?

A: The FirePro supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1). The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life. The Quadro 4000 was released in November 2010, and the FirePro W5130M in October 2015.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 4000 is within 0.2% of the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB and 1% ahead of the Radeon R7 M360. The FirePro W5130M is within 0.1% of the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB and 0.5% behind the Radeon R7 M265.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins in memory bandwidth, delivering 89.86 GB/s over a 256-bit bus. This is a decisive advantage for workloads that stream large textures or datasets. It also wins the only measured benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 1.5%. Its pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s and texture rate of 15.20 GTexel/s are lower than the FirePro’s, but the higher ROP count of 32 versus 16 suggests it handles fill-rate-bound tasks more efficiently per clock. For desktop builders, the Quadro’s single-slot form factor and 142 W TDP are practical advantages, with a clear 241 mm length that fits standard cases. It also has a listed launch MSRP of 1,199 USD.

The AMD FirePro W5130M wins on raw compute specifications. Its 512 shading units and 947.2 GFLOPS FP32 are roughly double the Quadro’s figures. Its pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s and texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s are also nearly double. It has a modern 28 nm process, which implies better thermal efficiency, and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface versus the Quadro’s PCIe 2.0. It supports Vulkan 1.2.170, opening the door to modern graphics APIs that the Quadro cannot use. As a mobile part, it is also the only option for laptop workstation builds. The FirePro’s boost clock of 925 MHz and base clock of 900 MHz give it a defined clock speed advantage, though the Quadro lists no base or boost clock for comparison.

Use-case split: choose the Quadro 4000 for legacy desktop OpenCL workflows, high-bandwidth memory tasks, and any situation where the 1.5% measured benchmark lead matters. Choose the FirePro W5130M for mobile workstations, shader-compute-heavy applications, Vulkan-based software, and scenarios where modern API support is non-negotiable.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 4000 | AMD FirePro W5130M |

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

| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 5.9M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 256 | 512 |

| TMUs | 32 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| FP32 | 486.4 GFLOPS | 947.2 GFLOPS |

| Memory Clock | 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps) |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.86 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| TDP | 142 W | Not listed |

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

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | Not listed | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | November 2010 | October 2015 |

| Launch MSRP | 1,199 USD | Not listed |