AMD FirePro W5130M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5130M and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M are both end-of-life mobile workstation graphics solutions, but they come from different design eras and pursue different performance targets. The recorded data shows a clear winner in the single available metric, yet the underlying specifications reveal a more nuanced comparison than a simple score gap might suggest.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head benchmark for these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241 points. This gives the AMD part a 15.6% advantage, a substantial margin in compute workloads that rely on OpenCL acceleration.

Looking at the broader context, the AMD FirePro W5130M sits at the 29th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro K3000M rests at the 25th percentile. The 4 percentage point gap in percentile ranking reflects the 15.6% score difference, but it also indicates that both are relatively low performers in the absolute scale of modern graphics hardware. The FirePro W5130M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, which scores 4901 points (a 0.1% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, which scores 4893 points (a 0.2% delta). The AMD Radeon R7 M265 and AMD Radeon R7 M360 both score slightly higher at 4929 and 4931 points, respectively, putting them 0.5% ahead of the FirePro W5130M. This clustering suggests the FirePro W5130M is positioned exactly at a performance plateau where several very different GPU architectures converge.

The Quadro K3000M’s nearest rivals tell a different story. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 4268 points, which is 0.6% higher than the Quadro. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282 points, 1% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti scores 4193 points, putting it 1.2% behind the Quadro K3000M. The AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4295 points, 1.3% ahead. This range of deltas, from -1.3% to +1.2%, shows that the Quadro K3000M is surrounded by a tight pack of older and newer parts, none of which dominate it by a large margin. However, the 15.6% gap between the two compared GPUs is far larger than any single rival delta for either card.

The benchmark result indicates that the AMD FirePro W5130M’s advantage is not marginal. A 15.6% lead in OpenCL performance is significant for mobile workstation tasks such as GPU-accelerated rendering, image processing, or compute shaders. The fact that the FirePro W5130M achieves this despite being released nearly three and a half years later (October 2015 versus May 2012) suggests that architectural improvements and higher clocks provide a measurable benefit.

The Verdict

From the recorded data alone, the AMD FirePro W5130M is the stronger GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, and its score places it in a higher percentile bracket. Any user selecting between these two for OpenCL-driven workloads should favor the FirePro W5130M based on the 15.6% performance delta.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M, however, is not without merit. Its 75 W TDP is explicitly documented, while the FirePro W5130M has no TDP value in the database. This means the Quadro K3000M offers a known power envelope, which can be important for system integration in laptops where thermal and power limits are strict. The FirePro W5130M’s power draw is unrecorded, so its efficiency cannot be directly compared.

For users whose primary concern is raw OpenCL throughput, the data points decisively to the AMD part. For users who require a documented power specification and are willing to accept a lower compute score, the Quadro K3000M remains a viable choice, though it will deliver 15.6% less performance in the tested workload. The verdict is straightforward: the FirePro W5130M wins the benchmark comparison, while the Quadro K3000M wins on having a published power figure.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241 points. The AMD part leads by 15.6%.

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

A: The FirePro W5130M is within 0.5% of the AMD Radeon R7 M265 and AMD Radeon R7 M360, and within 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450. The Quadro K3000M is within 1.3% of the AMD FirePro W2100, 1% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M, and 1.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. The FirePro W5130M uses a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K3000M uses a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, while the AMD FirePro W5130M has 512 shading units.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M was released on May 31, 2012, and the AMD FirePro W5130M was released on October 1, 2015.

Q: What is the difference in transistor count?

A: The Quadro K3000M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the FirePro W5130M has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification category. The AMD FirePro W5130M has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 925 MHz, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a fixed clock of 654 MHz for both base and boost. The memory clock also differs: the FirePro W5130M runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the Quadro K3000M runs at 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective.

Memory bandwidth shows a notable divergence. The FirePro W5130M has a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro K3000M has a 256-bit bus and 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. Despite having a narrower bus, the FirePro’s higher memory clock partially compensates, but the Quadro still maintains a bandwidth advantage of 25.60 GB/s.

The compute pipelines differ in count. The FirePro W5130M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro’s higher counts in all three categories suggest a wider execution resource pool, yet its lower clocks (654 MHz versus 925 MHz boost) limit realized throughput.

Pixel and texture rates reflect this balance. The FirePro W5130M achieves 14.80 GPixel/s pixel rate and 29.60 GTexel/s texture rate. The Quadro K3000M achieves 7.848 GPixel/s pixel rate and 31.39 GTexel/s texture rate. The FirePro is far ahead in pixel fill, while the Quadro leads slightly in texture fill.

FP32 performance favors the AMD part: 947.2 GFLOPS versus 753.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro. The FirePro W5130M also has a higher transistor density at 12.2M per mm², compared to 12.0M per mm² for the Quadro, though the Quadro uses far more total transistors (3,540 million versus 1,500 million).

The bus interface differs as well. The FirePro W5130M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Quadro K3000M uses MXM-B (3.0). The Quadro’s TDP is documented as 75 W and its slot type is listed as MXM Module with no power connectors required. The FirePro W5130M has no TDP, no slot width, and no power connector information in the database.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro W5130M is built on the Tropo chip using the GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured at 28 nm by TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip with the Kepler architecture, also at 28 nm and also from TSMC. Both use the same process node, so process technology does not explain the performance gap.

The FirePro W5130M belongs to the FirePro Mobile generation (Wx100M) and lists its predecessor as FirePro Mobility and its successor as Radeon Pro Mobile. The Quadro K3000M belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M generation (Kx000M), with a predecessor of Quadro Fermi-M and a successor of Quadro Maxwell-M. These generational placements indicate that the FirePro W5130M is a later design, which aligns with its later release date.

The die sizes differ meaningfully: the FirePro W5130M measures 123 mm², while the Quadro K3000M measures 294 mm². The Quadro’s die is more than twice as large, and its transistor count of 3,540 million is more than double the FirePro’s 1,500 million. However, the FirePro achieves higher FP32 performance on a smaller die, indicating better per-transistor efficiency in the tested workload.

API support shows slight differences. The FirePro W5130M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro has a marginally newer Vulkan version, while the FirePro has a slightly newer DirectX feature level.

The display outputs for the Quadro K3000M are described as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning they vary by laptop design. The FirePro W5130M has no display output information recorded. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and both lack FP16 data.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W5130M wins decisively in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, scoring 4904 versus 4241. This makes it the better choice for any application that leverages OpenCL for general-purpose compute, such as video encoding, physics simulation, or data processing. Its FP32 throughput of 947.2 GFLOPS is also 193.8 GFLOPS higher than the Quadro’s 753.4 GFLOPS, reinforcing its compute advantage.

The FirePro W5130M also wins in pixel fill rate, delivering 14.80 GPixel/s versus 7.848 GPixel/s for the Quadro. This suggests it can handle higher resolution framebuffer operations or more complex pixel shader workloads more quickly. Its higher boost clock of 925 MHz, compared to the Quadro’s fixed 654 MHz, contributes to these wins.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins in memory bandwidth, offering 89.60 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. This can benefit workloads that are memory-bound rather than compute-bound, such as large texture fetches or data streaming. The Quadro also has more texture mapping units (48 versus 32) and a higher texture rate (31.39 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s), making it potentially stronger in texel-heavy rendering tasks.

The Quadro K3000M has a documented TDP of 75 W, which is a clear advantage for system designers who need a known power envelope. The FirePro W5130M lacks this specification, so its power requirements are unknown. The Quadro also has a wider 256-bit memory bus, which can reduce memory latency in certain access patterns.

In terms of shading resources, the Quadro has more shading units (576 versus 512) and more ROPs (32 versus 16), but its lower clocks prevent it from converting these counts into higher overall compute scores. The FirePro W5130M’s higher clocks and better FP32 efficiency make it the winner in the recorded benchmark, while the Quadro’s strengths lie in memory bandwidth, texture throughput, and documented power consumption.

For users running OpenCL-heavy workloads, the FirePro W5130M is the clear choice. For users who prioritize memory bandwidth or require a known TDP, the Quadro K3000M offers specific advantages, though with a 15.6% lower compute score. The data does not show any other benchmark results, so these conclusions are limited to the single recorded test.