GPU Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5130M and NVIDIA Quadro P400 are both end-of-life professional graphics cards aimed at different segments of the workstation market. The FirePro W5130M is a mobile GPU from 2015, built on AMD's older GCN 1.0 architecture, while the Quadro P400 is a desktop card from 2017 using NVIDIA's more modern Pascal architecture. Benchmark data shows a single head-to-head OpenCL result, with the AMD card taking a clear lead, but the specification sheets reveal a more nuanced story regarding efficiency and feature support. This analysis breaks down the data to help determine which card fits a specific need.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5130M has a higher average benchmark score of 4904, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro P400's average of 4684. This puts the AMD card at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA card sits at the 27th percentile.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference in the head-to-head test?

A: In the only shared benchmark test, Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904 points, which is 15.4% higher than the Quadro P400's score of 4249.

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

A: The FirePro W5130M is closely matched with the AMD Radeon R7 M360, which scores 4931, a 0.5% difference. The Quadro P400 is similarly close to the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, which scores 4727, a 0.9% difference.

Q: What are the key architectural differences?

A: The AMD card uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, while the NVIDIA card uses the Pascal architecture on a more efficient 14 nm process. The NVIDIA chip also has double the transistor count, at 3,300 million versus 1,500 million.

Q: Which card supports a newer version of DirectX?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), whereas the AMD FirePro W5130M supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the physical and power differences?

A: The Quadro P400 is a single-slot, low-profile desktop card with a 30 W TDP and no power connectors, requiring a 200 W power supply. The FirePro W5130M's TDP and physical dimensions are not listed in the data.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent distinct design philosophies from different eras. The AMD FirePro W5130M is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using a 28 nm process at TSMC. This older node results in a larger transistor density of 12.2M per mm² for its 1,500 million transistors, which are packed into a 123 mm² die. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is based on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a more advanced 14 nm process at Samsung. This allows NVIDIA to fit 3,300 million transistors into a slightly larger 132 mm² die, achieving a much higher transistor density of 25.0M per mm².

The core configurations also differ significantly. The AMD card features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The NVIDIA card has half the shading units at 256, and half the TMUs at 16, but retains 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer cores, the Quadro P400 operates at substantially higher clocks, with a base of 1228 MHz and a boost of 1252 MHz, compared to the FirePro W5130M's 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost.

In terms of API support, the NVIDIA card is more modern, offering DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD card is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The NVIDIA card also has a dedicated FP16 performance rating of 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64), a feature not listed for the AMD card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data provides one direct comparison point: the Geekbench OpenCL test. This is a compute-oriented benchmark that measures raw processing power for general-purpose tasks. The results are clear-cut.

The AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 scores 4249 points. This gives the AMD card a decisive 15.4% victory in this test. This is a significant margin, suggesting that the AMD card's higher number of shading units and TMUs provides a substantial advantage in compute workloads, despite its lower clock speeds and older architecture. The AMD card's 512 shading units are likely the primary driver of this win, as they allow for more parallel processing threads than the Quadro P400's 256 units.

Conversely, the NVIDIA card has no wins in the head-to-head data. The only benchmark where both cards have scores is the OpenCL test, and the AMD card wins it outright. The Quadro P400 does have a separate Vulkan score of 5119, but there is no corresponding score for the FirePro W5130M, so no comparison can be made.

Specification Differences

Here are the specifications where the two cards differ, based on the data provided:

• Manufacturer: AMD vs. NVIDIA
• Chip: Tropo vs. GP107
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 vs. Pascal
• Process Node: 28 nm vs. 14 nm
• Foundry: TSMC vs. Samsung
• Transistors: 1,500 million vs. 3,300 million
• Die Size: 123 mm² vs. 132 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.2M / mm² vs. 25.0M / mm²
• Base Clock: 900 MHz vs. 1228 MHz
• Boost Clock: 925 MHz vs. 1252 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1000 MHz vs. 1002 MHz
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs. 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s vs. 32.06 GB/s
• Shading Units: 512 vs. 256
• TMUs: 32 vs. 16
• Pixel Rate: 14.80 GPixel/s vs. 20.03 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 29.60 GTexel/s vs. 20.03 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 947.2 GFLOPS vs. 641.0 GFLOPS
• FP16 Performance: Not listed vs. 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64)
• TDP: Not listed vs. 30 W
• Slot Width: Not listed vs. Single-slot
• Power Connectors: Not listed vs. None
• Suggested PSU: Not listed vs. 200 W
• Display Outputs: Not listed vs. 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) vs. 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.170 vs. 1.4
• Dimensions (Length): Not listed vs. 150 mm (5.9 inches)
• Dimensions (Height): Not listed vs. 69 mm (2.7 inches)
• Release Date: 2015-10-01 vs. 2017-02-06
• Predecessor: FirePro Mobility vs. Quadro Maxwell
• Successor: Radeon Pro Mobile vs. Quadro Volta

Where Each One Wins

AMD FirePro W5130M:

• Compute Performance: The AMD card wins the only head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 15.4% advantage. Its higher FP32 performance (947.2 GFLOPS vs. 641.0 GFLOPS) and memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs. 32.06 GB/s) suggest it is better suited for raw compute tasks and large data sets.
• Texture Processing: The FirePro has a higher texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s, more than double that of the Quadro P400's 20.03 GTexel/s. This could benefit workloads that rely heavily on texture sampling, though the Quadro's higher pixel rate might balance this in some scenarios.
• Memory Bus: With a 128-bit memory bus compared to the Quadro's 64-bit bus, the AMD card has a significant advantage in memory bandwidth, which is critical for memory-intensive compute workloads.

NVIDIA Quadro P400:

• Pixel Processing: The Quadro P400 has a higher pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s compared to the FirePro's 14.80 GPixel/s. This indicates a potential advantage in tasks that are heavily reliant on rasterization and fill-rate, such as certain 2D rendering or display workloads.
• Modern API Support: The Quadro P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, which are newer than the FirePro's DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. This is crucial for software that leverages the latest graphics features.
• Power Efficiency and Form Factor: The Quadro P400 is a desktop card with a 30 W TDP, no power connectors, and a single-slot, low-profile design. It also has a specified length of 150 mm and height of 69 mm. This makes it a much easier card to integrate into a small form factor or low-power workstation, whereas the FirePro's power and physical specs are not listed.
• Display Outputs: The Quadro P400 includes 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, a specific feature not detailed for the AMD card.

The Verdict

The choice between these two cards depends on the primary use case and the physical constraints of the system.

The data clearly shows the AMD FirePro W5130M is the stronger performer in compute-centric tasks. Its 15.4% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, combined with higher FP32 throughput and memory bandwidth, makes it the better option for workloads like GPU compute, scientific simulations, or any application that can leverage OpenCL. The card's higher transistor density and older architecture might mean higher power consumption, but raw performance is its selling point.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 offers a different set of advantages. Its modern Pascal architecture brings support for newer API versions, which is essential for compatibility with the latest professional applications. Its low power draw, single-slot design, and specified dimensions make it a practical choice for a compact desktop workstation where space and cooling are at a premium. The higher pixel rate also suggests it may handle display and rasterization tasks more efficiently.

For a user prioritizing raw compute performance and who is not constrained by power or space, the AMD FirePro W5130M is the data-backed choice. For a user needing a low-profile, power-efficient desktop card with modern API support and specific display outputs, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is the more logical pick. The benchmark data points to the AMD card for performance, but the specification sheet points to the NVIDIA card for practicality and compatibility.