AMD FirePro W5130M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and AMD FirePro W5130M are both end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs, but the data shows a clear performance leader. The Quadro K3100M wins the only head-to-head benchmark, delivering a 25.5% higher score in Geekbench OpenCL. This advantage stems from a fundamentally larger and more powerful chip, though the FirePro counters with a more modern feature set in API support. The choice between them depends on whether raw compute throughput or architectural efficiency and newer API compliance takes priority.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M wins the sole head-to-head comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 6154 against the FirePro W5130M’s 4904, a decisive 25.5% margin. This is the only shared benchmark in the FACT PACK, meaning the Quadro holds a total win count of 1, while the FirePro records zero wins.

The Quadro’s victory is rooted in raw hardware scale. It packs 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, compared to the FirePro’s 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 50% advantage in shader and texture hardware translates directly into its 1,084.4 GFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the FirePro’s 947.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro also boasts a 256-bit memory bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth, double the FirePro’s 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s.

However, the FirePro W5130M does hold a few subtle wins in specification-level performance rates. Its pixel rate is 14.80 GPixel/s, notably higher than the Quadro’s 11.30 GPixel/s. This is due to its higher clock speed: the FirePro runs at a 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost, while the Quadro is locked at 706 MHz for both base and boost. The FirePro also has a higher transistor density (12.2M / mm² vs. 12.0M / mm²), though this is marginal. In terms of API support, the FirePro lists DirectX 12 (11_1), one version ahead of the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0), and a slightly newer Vulkan version (1.2.170 vs. 1.2.175 for the Quadro, actually the Quadro has a newer Vulkan version — see specification section).

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The Quadro K3100M is built on NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip. This is a large, high-transistor part: 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process. The FirePro W5130M uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, which is dramatically smaller at 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, also on TSMC’s 28 nm process. The die size difference is substantial — the Quadro’s chip is nearly 2.4 times larger.

This size disparity explains the performance gap. The Quadro’s larger transistor budget allows for more execution units, a wider memory interface, and higher fill rates. It also has a higher thermal design power at 75 W, whereas the FirePro’s TDP is not specified in the data. The Quadro uses an MXM-B (3.0) bus interface, while the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x16, reflecting their different mobile platform designs.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The Quadro offers 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, achieving 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro offers just 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, halving bandwidth to 64.00 GB/s. Memory clock speeds also differ: the Quadro runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), the FirePro at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The FirePro’s faster memory clock partially compensates for its narrower bus, but the Quadro’s overall bandwidth remains superior.

Feature-wise, both support OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro’s Vulkan is 1.2.175, slightly newer than the FirePro’s 1.2.170. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), giving AMD a small API feature edge. Neither GPU has ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is decisively faster. In the only head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 6154 versus the AMD FirePro W5130M’s 4904, a 25.5% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W5130M have any performance advantages?

A: Yes, in specific fill-rate metrics. The FirePro achieves a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s, higher than the Quadro’s 11.30 GPixel/s, due to its higher clock speeds (925 MHz boost vs. 706 MHz). However, the Quadro has a higher texture rate at 45.18 GTexel/s versus 29.60 GTexel/s.

Q: How do their memory subsystems compare?

A: The Quadro K3100M has a clear advantage. It features 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W5130M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding only 64.00 GB/s. The FirePro’s memory runs at 4 Gbps effective versus 3.2 Gbps on the Quadro, but the Quadro’s wider bus wins.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: It is a split decision. The AMD FirePro W5130M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), one revision ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M’s DirectX 12 (11_0). However, the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175, a slightly newer version than the FirePro’s 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the physical differences in the chips?

A: The Quadro uses the GK104 chip with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The FirePro uses the Tropo chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but the Quadro’s chip is significantly larger. The Quadro’s TDP is 75 W; the FirePro’s TDP is not specified.

Q: Which GPU has a better overall benchmark standing?

A: The Quadro K3100M sits in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5154. The FirePro W5130M sits in the 29th percentile, with an average score of 4904. The Quadro’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (delta -0.1%) and NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (delta -1.1%). The FirePro’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (delta 0.1%) and NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (delta 0.2%).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K3100M | AMD FirePro W5130M |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GK104 | Tropo |

| Transistors | 3,540 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 294 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Base Clock | 706 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 706 MHz | 925 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 512 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 11.30 GPixel/s | 14.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 45.18 GTexel/s | 29.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 1,084.4 GFLOPS | 947.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | Not specified |

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

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2015-10-01 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive win for the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M. The Quadro scores 6154, while the AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904. This results in a delta of 25.5% in favor of the Quadro. This is not a marginal difference; it represents a substantial performance gap in general-purpose compute workloads.

The source of this gap is clear from the specification sheet. The Quadro has 50% more shading units (768 vs. 512), 100% more TMUs (64 vs. 32), and 100% more ROPs (32 vs. 16). Its FP32 throughput of 1,084.4 GFLOPS is 14.5% higher than the FirePro’s 947.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro’s memory bandwidth advantage is even more pronounced: 102.4 GB/s is 60% higher than the FirePro’s 64.00 GB/s. This combination of more compute units and more bandwidth allows the Quadro to dominate in the OpenCL test.

However, the FirePro does not lose every metric. Its pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s is 31% higher than the Quadro’s 11.30 GPixel/s. This is achieved through a higher clock speed (925 MHz boost vs. 706 MHz) and a more efficient pixel pipeline per ROP. The FirePro’s texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s is lower than the Quadro’s 45.18 GTexel/s, but its fill rate characteristics suggest it might be more competitive in specific pixel-bound scenarios, even if the overall compute benchmark says otherwise.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the head-to-head result. The Quadro K3100M has an average score of 5154 across all its benchmarks (including Geekbench Metal at 3823 and Vulkan at 5484), while the FirePro’s average is 4904, based solely on its OpenCL result. The Quadro’s percentile ranking of 30th is just one point higher than the FirePro’s 29th, indicating they sit in a similar performance tier overall, despite the Quadro’s clear win in the shared test.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the superior performer in compute workloads. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark with a 25.5% margin, and its underlying hardware specifications — more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, twice the memory bandwidth, and higher FP32 throughput — all support this result. For users prioritizing raw processing power for tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering or scientific computation, the Quadro is the definitive choice from this dataset.

The AMD FirePro W5130M, while losing the compute benchmark, has its own merits. It offers a higher pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s vs. 11.30 GPixel/s) and a more modern DirectX feature set (12 (11_1) vs. 12 (11_0)). Its smaller die and lower transistor count suggest better power efficiency per transistor, though its TDP is unspecified. It also has a newer release date (October 2015 vs. July 2013), meaning it is a more recent design.

The decision hinges on the workload. If the task is compute-intensive and benefits from high FP32 throughput and large memory bandwidth, the Quadro K3100M is the clear winner. If the task is pixel-bound and requires the latest DirectX 11_1 features, the FirePro W5130M may be more suitable, despite its lower overall compute score. The Quadro’s 4 GB memory capacity is also a significant advantage for large datasets, double the FirePro’s 2 GB. Ultimately, the Quadro’s decisive benchmark victory and superior memory subsystem make it the stronger recommendation for most professional applications, with the FirePro serving as a viable alternative for specific, pixel-rate-sensitive use cases.