AMD FirePro W5130M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and AMD FirePro W5130M are both end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs from different architectural eras. The data shows a close contest in raw compute, with the NVIDIA part holding a modest edge in the only shared benchmark. This analysis breaks down their performance, architecture, and suitability based solely on the provided specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211 points, while the AMD FirePro W5130M trails with 4904 points. This gives the Quadro 4000M a 6.3% advantage, a clear but not overwhelming lead.

Context from the nearest rivals list for each GPU helps interpret this margin. The Quadro 4000M’s score places it within a tight cluster of competitors. It sits just 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236 points) and 1.4% behind the GeForce 940M (5284 points). At the same time, it is 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161 points) and 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154 points). This positioning shows the Quadro 4000M is right in the middle of a performance band where small margins separate several mobile GPUs.

The FirePro W5130M’s 4904-point score places it in a slightly lower performance tier. It is within 0.1% of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901 points), a surprisingly close result given the generational gap implied by that rival’s name. It also sits 0.2% ahead of the GeForce GTS 450 (4893 points). On the AMD side, it is 0.5% behind both the Radeon R7 M265 (4929 points) and the Radeon R7 M360 (4931 points). The FirePro’s cluster of rivals all sit within a narrow 40-point range, indicating that its compute performance is consistent with a specific performance class.

The 6.3% delta between the two reviewed cards is meaningful but not dramatic. In practical terms, the Quadro 4000M delivers 307 more OpenCL points, a difference that could translate into slightly faster completion of compute workloads, but it does not represent a generational leap in capability. The win count reflects this: the Quadro 4000M wins the single head-to-head test, while the FirePro W5130M has zero wins.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing nodes. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is built on the Fermi architecture using the GF104 chip, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The AMD FirePro W5130M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, manufactured on a more advanced 28 nm node, also at TSMC.

The process node difference has a direct impact on transistor density. The Quadro 4000M packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, yielding a density of 5.9 million transistors per square millimeter. The FirePro W5130M contains 1,500 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die, achieving a density of 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter. This means the AMD chip is more than twice as dense, a direct result of the smaller manufacturing node.

Core configuration also differs significantly. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The FirePro W5130M counters with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The AMD part has over 50% more shading units, but the NVIDIA part has 75% more TMUs and double the ROPs. These architectural trade-offs lead to different strengths: more shaders favor compute throughput, while more texture and pixel units favor traditional rasterization.

Clock speeds are where the FirePro W5130M shows its newer design. It has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 925 MHz. The Quadro 4000M has no base or boost clock listed, but its memory runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The FirePro’s memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Memory subsystems also diverge. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the Quadro 4000M uses a 256-bit bus, giving it 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W5130M uses a 128-bit bus, resulting in 64.00 GB/s. Despite the newer memory clock, the narrower bus means the AMD card has 20% less bandwidth.

The bus interface differs as well. The Quadro 4000M uses MXM-B (3.0), a module standard common in laptops, while the FirePro W5130M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The Quadro’s slot width is listed as MXM Module, and its display outputs are portable device dependent. The FirePro’s display outputs are not specified.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro 4000M wins the only benchmark where both are measured. Its 5211 OpenCL score against the FirePro’s 4904 shows a 6.3% advantage in compute tasks. This suggests the NVIDIA card is the better choice for OpenCL-based workloads, despite being built on an older architecture. Its higher memory bandwidth (80.00 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s) and larger ROP count (32 vs 16) likely contribute to this edge, even though the FirePro has more shading units.

The FirePro W5130M does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but its architecture suggests specific strengths not captured in the single test. It has a much higher pixel rate: 14.80 GPixel/s versus the Quadro’s 6.650 GPixel/s. This is a 122% advantage, which could matter for fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s also edges out the Quadro’s 26.60 GTexel/s, an 11% lead. These rates indicate the AMD card could excel in tasks that heavily stress pixel or texture throughput, even if its overall compute score is lower.

FP32 performance also favors the FirePro W5130M. It delivers 947.2 GFLOPS versus the Quadro 4000M’s 638.4 GFLOPS, a 48% advantage. This raw floating-point capability, combined with the larger shading unit count, suggests the AMD card could be faster in certain compute workloads that scale well with shader count, even though the OpenCL benchmark tells a different story.

The FirePro also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed. For applications that leverage Vulkan, the AMD card has a clear software compatibility advantage. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the FirePro’s DirectX support is at 12 (11_1) level, while the Quadro is at 12 (11_0).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211, which is 6.3% higher than the AMD FirePro W5130M’s 4904.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The Quadro 4000M has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth from a 256-bit bus, while the FirePro W5130M has 64.00 GB/s from a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The FirePro W5130M has a density of 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter on a 28 nm node. The Quadro 4000M has 5.9 million per square millimeter on a 40 nm node.

Q: Does either card have a higher pixel fill rate?

A: Yes, the AMD FirePro W5130M has a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s, which is more than double the Quadro 4000M’s 6.650 GPixel/s.

Q: Which GPU supports the Vulkan API?

A: Only the AMD FirePro W5130M lists Vulkan support, at version 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the FP32 performance figures?

A: The FirePro W5130M delivers 947.2 GFLOPS, while the Quadro 4000M delivers 638.4 GFLOPS. The AMD card is 48% higher.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different use cases. If the primary workload is OpenCL compute as measured by Geekbench, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is the stronger performer. Its 6.3% lead and higher memory bandwidth make it the safer choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks. Its position among rivals, sitting above the Quadro K3100M and Radeon R7 M260X, reinforces its competitive standing in that specific metric.

However, the AMD FirePro W5130M has structural advantages that should not be ignored. Its 48% higher FP32 throughput and more than double the pixel rate indicate it could handle certain graphics or compute workloads more efficiently. The Vulkan support is a modern feature that the Fermi-based NVIDIA part simply cannot offer. For applications built around Vulkan or those that rely on raw shader throughput, the FirePro W5130M is the more capable card.

The choice comes down to the workload. The Quadro 4000M wins the only direct benchmark, so it gets the nod for OpenCL-centric tasks. The FirePro W5130M, with its newer architecture, higher pixel rate, and Vulkan compatibility, is better suited for graphics-heavy or Vulkan-based applications. Neither card is a clear overall winner; they are different tools for different jobs, with the NVIDIA part leading in the measured compute test and the AMD part offering architectural features that point to strengths in other areas.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 4000M | AMD FirePro W5130M |

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

| Chip | GF104 | Tropo |

| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 1,950 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 332 mm² | 123 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | Not listed | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 925 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 80.00 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 336 | 512 |

| TMUs | 56 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 6.650 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 26.60 GTexel/s | 29.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 638.4 GFLOPS | 947.2 GFLOPS |

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

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

| Vulkan Support | Not listed | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2011-02-21 | 2015-10-01 |