AMD FirePro W5130M vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5130M and NVIDIA Quadro M3000M are both end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs from 2015, yet they represent fundamentally different approaches to the same task. The data shows a stark contrast: the Quadro M3000M wins the only shared benchmark by a massive margin, but the FirePro W5130M holds its own in the broader performance percentile rankings. This analysis breaks down where each chip excels, what the architectural gap means, and who should choose which based strictly on the available facts.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results paint a clear picture of a single dominant victory for the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M. In the only head-to-head test available, Geekbench OpenCL, the M3000M scores 16,646 against the FirePro W5130M’s 4,904, a delta of -70.5% for the AMD part. That is not a narrow win; it is a decisive, three-fold performance advantage in raw compute throughput. For any workload that leverages OpenCL—think general-purpose GPU compute, simulation, or rendering tasks—the M3000M is the only rational choice based on this data.

However, the FirePro W5130M does not lose everywhere. Its average benchmark score across all tests is 4,904, while the M3000M’s average is 4,621. This is a curious inversion: the M3000M wins the single shared test by a landslide, yet its overall average is dragged down by other benchmarks. The M3000M’s PassMark scores tell the story—DirectX 9 at 98, DirectX 11 at 42, and GPU Compute at 2,139 are all modest figures. The FirePro W5130M, with only one recorded benchmark, maintains a higher average because it has no weak secondary results. In percentile terms, the FirePro ranks at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the M3000M sits at the 27th, meaning the AMD card actually outranks the NVIDIA card in the broader performance distribution despite losing the direct comparison.

The use-case split is therefore clear: for OpenCL-heavy compute, the M3000M wins outright. For a balanced view across multiple benchmark types, the FirePro’s single strong result gives it a slight edge in percentile standing. The M3000M’s additional PassMark tests reveal it is a capable DirectX 9 performer (98) but struggles with newer APIs (DirectX 12 at 23), suggesting it favors older or compute-oriented workloads over modern gaming or graphics API stress.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs could not be more different under the hood. The AMD FirePro W5130M uses the Tropo chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a die size of 123 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with 5,200 million transistors spread across a much larger 398 mm² die, achieving a density of 13.1M per mm². The M3000M is over three times larger in transistor count and die area, which explains its massive compute advantage.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The FirePro runs at a base of 900 MHz with a 925 MHz boost, while the M3000M starts lower at 823 MHz base but boosts to 924 MHz—nearly identical peak boost clocks. The memory clocks differ significantly: the FirePro uses 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) GDDR5, while the M3000M runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). This memory speed difference, combined with a wider bus, gives the M3000M a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s versus the FirePro’s 64.00 GB/s, a 2.5x advantage that heavily impacts compute-heavy tasks.

Feature support also diverges. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The M3000M’s newer API versions suggest better forward compatibility, though both are end-of-life products. The M3000M is a 75 W part on an MXM Module slot with no power connectors, while the FirePro’s TDP is not listed. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16, but the M3000M’s display outputs are “Portable Device Dependent,” whereas the FirePro’s are unspecified.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the AMD FirePro W5130M’s 4,904, a 70.5% difference in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: Does the AMD card rank higher than the NVIDIA card in overall GPU percentile?

A: Yes. The FirePro W5130M sits at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M3000M is at the 27th percentile, despite the M3000M winning the head-to-head test.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA card?

A: The M3000M has 160.4 GB/s bandwidth from a 256-bit bus and 5 Gbps effective memory, versus the FirePro’s 64.00 GB/s from a 128-bit bus and 4 Gbps effective memory.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the FirePro W5130M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs—exactly double in each category.

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The M3000M contains 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the FirePro has 1,500 million on a 123 mm² die, making the NVIDIA chip over three times larger in both metrics.

Q: What are the DirectX version differences?

A: The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, giving the NVIDIA card newer API feature levels.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The FirePro W5130M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the M3000M has 4 GB on a 256-bit bus. Memory bandwidth is 64.00 GB/s versus 160.4 GB/s. The FirePro’s base clock is 900 MHz with a boost of 925 MHz; the M3000M’s base is 823 MHz with a boost of 924 MHz. Shading units are 512 versus 1,024, TMUs are 32 versus 64, and ROPs are 16 versus 32.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the hardware gap: the FirePro delivers 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s, while the M3000M hits 29.57 GPixel/s and 59.14 GTexel/s—both roughly double. FP32 performance is 947.2 GFLOPS for the AMD card versus 1.892 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card, another exact doubling. The M3000M is rated at 75 W TDP and uses an MXM Module slot with no power connectors, while the FirePro’s TDP and slot width are not listed. Both use PCIe 3.0 x16 and are end-of-life, with the FirePro released on 2015-10-01 and the M3000M on 2015-08-17.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a blowout. The Quadro M3000M scores 16,646, while the FirePro W5130M manages just 4,904, a delta of -70.5% for the AMD part. This is the single most important data point in this comparison. The M3000M’s FP32 performance of 1.892 TFLOPS versus 947.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro directly explains this gap—compute-heavy OpenCL workloads scale almost linearly with FP32 throughput, and the NVIDIA card has exactly double the raw floating-point capability.

The M3000M’s additional benchmark results provide context. Its PassMark G3D score is 5,543, but its DirectX 10 score is only 26, DirectX 11 is 42, and DirectX 12 is 23. These low API-specific scores suggest the M3000M is optimized for compute rather than graphics rendering, which aligns with its workstation pedigree. The FirePro has no equivalent secondary benchmarks, so its 4,904 OpenCL score stands alone. When comparing averages, the M3000M’s mean of 4,621 across nine tests is lower than the FirePro’s single 4,904, but this is misleading—the M3000M’s average is pulled down by the low PassMark DirectX scores, not by weak OpenCL performance.

The nearest rivals for each card further contextualize performance. The FirePro’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M360 at 4,931 (a -0.5% delta), while the M3000M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M at 4,628 (-0.1% delta). Both cards are in the same performance neighborhood as mid-range consumer parts, but the M3000M’s peak compute output is in a different class entirely.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for compute workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the superior choice. It delivers 3.4x the OpenCL score, has 2x the shading units, 2x the memory bandwidth, and 2x the FP32 throughput of the AMD FirePro W5130M. For any task that uses OpenCL, DirectX 12 (12_1), or Vulkan 1.4, the M3000M is the only reasonable pick. Its 4 GB of memory also doubles the FirePro’s 2 GB, which matters for larger datasets or higher-resolution textures.

However, the FirePro W5130M is not without merit. It holds a higher overall GPU percentile (29th vs 27th) and a higher average benchmark score (4,904 vs 4,621), suggesting that in a mixed workload environment—one that includes lighter graphics tasks or older APIs—the AMD card may be more consistent. Its smaller die (123 mm² vs 398 mm²) and lower transistor count (1,500M vs 5,200M) imply lower power draw, though no TDP is listed for the FirePro.

The choice comes down to workload type. If the primary use is OpenCL compute, rendering, or simulation, the M3000M wins without contest. If the use case is a general-purpose mobile workstation where the GPU is secondary and the higher percentile ranking matters, the FirePro W5130M offers a more balanced profile. The M3000M’s PassMark scores show it is weak in DirectX 9-era rendering (98) and DirectX 12 (23), so it is not a jack-of-all-trades. The FirePro, with its single high OpenCL score, avoids those weaknesses entirely. For buyers today, the M3000M is the compute specialist, and the FirePro is the safer all-rounder—but neither should be chosen for modern gaming or high-end graphics, given their end-of-life status and modest percentile rankings.