AMD FirePro W5170M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 Comparison

# NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 vs AMD FirePro W5170M

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 and AMD FirePro W5170M represent two very different approaches to mobile and desktop graphics, separated by four years of GPU architecture evolution. The GTX 465 is a desktop Fermi-era card from 2010, while the FirePro W5170M is a 2014 mobile workstation part built on GCN 1.0. Benchmark data shows the older NVIDIA card holds a decisive edge in raw compute performance, but the AMD part counters with modern API support and a more efficient design. This analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, architectural trade-offs, and practical implications for each card's intended use case.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two cards is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it paints a clear picture. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 scores 9294 points, while the AMD FirePro W5170M manages 8140 points. That gives the GTX 465 a 14.2% performance advantage in this compute-oriented workload. This is not a marginal win; it is a substantial lead that puts the desktop card in a different performance tier.

Context from the nearest rivals list reinforces how meaningful this margin is. The GTX 465's average benchmark score of 9294 places it at the 46th percentile among all GPUs, with its closest competitor being the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 850M at 9302 points (a negligible 0.1% difference). The AMD Radeon R7 M380 is similarly close at 9313 points. Meanwhile, the FirePro W5170M's average score drops to 8595 when combining its OpenCL and Vulkan results, placing it at the 44th percentile. Its nearest rival is the Intel Arc A380 at 8558 points, with the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 just 1.1% ahead at 8686 points.

What this means in practical terms is that the GTX 465, despite being a 2010 product, outperforms the FirePro W5170M in OpenCL compute by a margin comparable to the gap between the FirePro and a much newer Intel discrete GPU. The 14.2% delta is consistent across the comparison: it is larger than any single rival gap for either card. The GTX 465 also holds up well against newer mobile parts, trading blows with the GTX 850M and R7 M380, while the FirePro W5170M sits closer to entry-level offerings like the GeForce MX330.

One additional data point favors the AMD card in a different API environment. The FirePro W5170M records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9050, which is notably higher than its OpenCL result. The GTX 465 has no Vulkan score in the data, likely due to its older architecture lacking Vulkan driver support. This suggests that in Vulkan-based workloads, the FirePro would be the stronger performer, even though it loses decisively in OpenCL.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split based on workload and form factor. For pure OpenCL compute performance, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 is the unequivocal winner, delivering 14.2% higher scores. This is a significant margin that would translate to faster rendering, simulation, or data processing in OpenCL-accelerated applications. The GTX 465 also benefits from a wider 256-bit memory bus and higher memory bandwidth (102.7 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s), which helps in memory-intensive compute tasks.

However, the FirePro W5170M is the more modern and versatile part in several important ways. It supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GTX 465 has no Vulkan support listed. It also has a higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 12_0) and double the memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1024 MB. For mobile workstation use, the FirePro's MXM-A (3.0) form factor and lack of external power connectors make it a drop-in upgrade for laptops, whereas the GTX 465 requires a dual-slot desktop chassis with a 550 W suggested PSU.

Who should pick which? Users running OpenCL-heavy workflows on a desktop with adequate power delivery should choose the GTX 465; its 14.2% compute lead and higher bandwidth make it the stronger raw performer. Users needing Vulkan support, more memory capacity, or a mobile form factor should choose the FirePro W5170M. The AMD card also offers much higher transistor density (12.2M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm²) and a more modern 28 nm process, though these advantages do not translate into a win in the available benchmark. Ultimately, the GTX 465 wins the only head-to-head test, but the FirePro W5170M wins on compatibility and feature support.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 scores 9294 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the AMD FirePro W5170M's 8140, giving the NVIDIA card a 14.2% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W5170M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the FirePro W5170M supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9050. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 has no Vulkan support listed in the data.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD FirePro W5170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The GTX 465 has a 256-bit memory bus delivering 102.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W5170M has a 128-bit bus delivering 72.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient based on the data?

A: The GTX 465 has a 200 W TDP and requires 2x 6-pin power connectors with a 550 W suggested PSU. The FirePro W5170M has no TDP listed and requires no external power connectors, making it the more power-friendly option for mobile use.

Q: What are the form factors of these two cards?

A: The GTX 465 is a dual-slot desktop card measuring 241 mm in length, while the FirePro W5170M is an MXM Module using the MXM-A (3.0) bus interface.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 uses a 40 nm process node, while the AMD FirePro W5170M uses a 28 nm node, both manufactured by TSMC. The GTX 465 packs 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, whereas the FirePro W5170M has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. This results in transistor densities of 5.9M per mm² for NVIDIA and 12.2M per mm² for AMD.

Memory configurations diverge significantly: the GTX 465 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W5170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ: the GTX 465 lists no base or boost clock but has a memory clock of 802 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), whereas the FirePro W5170M has a 900 MHz base clock, 925 MHz boost clock, and 1125 MHz memory clock (4.5 Gbps effective).

Compute unit counts are reversed in scale: the GTX 465 has 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, while the FirePro W5170M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Despite fewer shading units, the GTX 465 achieves a higher pixel rate of 13.38 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s for AMD in a different metric, and the texture rates are 26.75 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 855.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA and 1,184.0 GFLOPS for AMD, though the GTX 465 still wins the OpenCL benchmark.

Form factor and power requirements are starkly different. The GTX 465 is dual-slot, 241 mm long, with 2x 6-pin power connectors and a 200 W TDP. The FirePro W5170M is an MXM Module with no external power connectors and no TDP listed. Bus interfaces are PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA and MXM-A (3.0) for AMD. Display outputs are 2x DVI and 1x mini-HDMI 1.3a for the GTX 465, while the FirePro is portable device dependent.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is substantial, reflecting four years of GPU evolution. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 465 is built on the Fermi architecture (chip GF100), which was NVIDIA's first generation to support compute capabilities like ECC and concurrent kernel execution. Fermi used a 40 nm process with a massive 529 mm² die, which contributed to its high 200 W TDP. The GTX 465 has no RT cores or tensor cores, as these features did not exist in 2010.

The AMD FirePro W5170M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture (chip Tropo), which was designed from the ground up for compute-heavy workloads. GCN 1.0 introduced a unified shader architecture with 640 shading units arranged in compute units, optimized for asynchronous compute and heterogeneous workloads. The 28 nm process node allows for much higher transistor density (12.2M per mm²) and a smaller die (123 mm²), making it suitable for mobile MXM modules.

Cache hierarchies differ implicitly through the architecture generations: Fermi relied on a partitioned L2 cache design, while GCN 1.0 used a unified L2 with more emphasis on memory-level parallelism. The GTX 465's 256-bit memory bus provides 102.7 GB/s bandwidth, which is higher than the FirePro's 72.00 GB/s despite the latter having faster effective memory clocks (4.5 Gbps versus 3.2 Gbps). This is because the GTX 465's wider bus compensates for its slower memory clock.

API support is another major architectural difference. The GTX 465 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. The FirePro W5170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Vulkan support is a significant advantage for the AMD card, as it enables modern cross-platform graphics APIs that the Fermi architecture cannot handle. The release dates (May 2010 for NVIDIA, August 2014 for AMD) explain this API gap, as Vulkan was not finalized until 2016.

Both cards are end-of-life products, with the GTX 465 following the GeForce 200 series and preceding the GeForce 500 series, while the FirePro W5170M follows FirePro Mobility and precedes Radeon Pro Mobile. The GTX 465 had a launch MSRP of 279 USD, while the FirePro W5170M has no listed launch MSRP. In terms of raw OpenCL compute, the older Fermi card wins, but the GCN architecture offers better efficiency, modern API support, and mobile integration that Fermi simply cannot match.