AMD FirePro W5170M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5170M and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE represent two very different approaches to mobile and desktop graphics, separated by several years of architectural evolution. The data in the database shows a clear performance leader, but the specifications reveal why these two products are not directly interchangeable. The FirePro W5170M, a 2014 mobile workstation part, and the GTX 560 SE, a 2012 desktop part, offer distinct feature sets and performance profiles that cater to different use cases.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows a decisive victory for the AMD FirePro W5170M. The AMD part scores 8140 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE scores 7171 points. This represents a 13.5% advantage for the FirePro W5170M, a significant margin that underscores the generational leap in compute capabilities.

This result is particularly telling because the GTX 560 SE has a higher raw memory bandwidth of 91.87 GB/s, compared to the FirePro W5170M's 72.00 GB/s. Despite having 20 GB/s more bandwidth, the NVIDIA part still falls behind in this compute-focused workload. The AMD FirePro W5170M's advantage likely stems from its newer GCN 1.0 architecture, which is more efficient at general-purpose compute tasks than the older Fermi 2.0 design.

The FirePro W5170M also holds a substantial lead in raw compute throughput, with a measured FP32 performance of 1,184.0 GFLOPS versus the GTX 560 SE's 847.9 GFLOPS. This is a 39.6% advantage in theoretical peak floating-point performance, which aligns with the 13.5% real-world benchmark lead. The GTX 560 SE does have a higher pixel rate and texture rate in some respects, but the AMD part counters with a much higher pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s versus 8.832 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card.

When placed in the broader context of the database's performance percentiles, the FirePro W5170M ranks in the 44th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 560 SE sits in the 39th percentile. The AMD part's average benchmark score of 8595 points places it near rivals like the Intel Arc A380 (8558 points, 0.4% difference) and the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8686 points, -1.1% difference). The GTX 560 SE's average score of 7171 points puts it in the company of the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7170 points, 0% difference) and the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203 points, -0.4% difference). This positioning shows that the FirePro W5170M competes with a much higher tier of graphics hardware.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M has an average benchmark score of 8595 points, which is significantly higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE's average of 7171 points. The FirePro W5170M also holds a higher percentile rank at 44th versus 39th for the NVIDIA part.

Q: How do the two compare in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M scores 8140 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE scores 7171. This gives the AMD part a 13.5% lead in this specific test. The database records one win for the AMD FirePro W5170M and zero wins for the GTX 560 SE.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE has a higher memory bandwidth of 91.87 GB/s, achieved through a 192-bit bus width. The AMD FirePro W5170M has a lower bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s, using a narrower 128-bit bus. Despite this disadvantage, the AMD part still outperforms the NVIDIA card in the recorded benchmark.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M has a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s, which is substantially higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE's 8.832 GPixel/s. This indicates that the AMD part can process pixels much faster, which is beneficial for high-resolution rendering tasks.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU based on average scores?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8686 points, -1.1% difference), the Intel Arc A380 (8558 points, 0.4% difference), and the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462 points, 1.6% difference). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7203 points, -0.4% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 (7222 points, -0.7% difference), and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7170 points, 0% difference).

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE support Vulkan?

A: No, the database does not list Vulkan support for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE. In contrast, the AMD FirePro W5170M supports Vulkan version 1.2.170. The NVIDIA part does support DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the AMD FirePro W5170M in raw performance. With a 13.5% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test and a much higher average benchmark score (8595 versus 7171), the AMD part is the superior choice for compute-heavy workloads. Its 44th percentile ranking versus the GTX 560 SE's 39th percentile further reinforces this conclusion.

For users focused on general-purpose computing, OpenCL acceleration, or modern graphics APIs, the AMD FirePro W5170M is the evident winner. It offers Vulkan 1.2.170 support, a newer GCN 1.0 architecture, and a significantly higher FP32 compute capacity. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE, while possessing higher memory bandwidth, simply cannot match the AMD part's compute efficiency.

However, the GTX 560 SE is not without its merits. As a desktop card with a dual-slot form factor and 2x 6-pin power connectors, it is designed for traditional desktop systems. The FirePro W5170M, being an MXM module, is intended for mobile workstations. Users with a desktop system should consider the GTX 560 SE, while those with a compatible mobile workstation should favor the FirePro W5170M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ significantly in their core specifications. The AMD FirePro W5170M is built on a 28 nm process node, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE uses a larger 40 nm process. This leads to a dramatic difference in die size: the AMD chip measures 123 mm², while the NVIDIA chip is 332 mm². The AMD part houses 1,500 million transistors, while the NVIDIA part has 1,950 million.

Memory configurations also differ. The FirePro W5170M comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 560 SE has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus, offering a higher 91.87 GB/s bandwidth. Clock speeds vary, with the AMD part running at a base of 900 MHz and boost of 925 MHz, while the NVIDIA part has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory clocks also differ: 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 957 MHz (3.8 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA.

The compute units are structured very differently. The AMD FirePro W5170M has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE has 288 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. This results in the AMD part having a much higher pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s versus 8.832 GPixel/s) and texture rate (37.00 GTexel/s versus 35.33 GTexel/s).

Physical specifications also differ. The FirePro W5170M uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and has no power connectors, while the GTX 560 SE uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and requires 2x 6-pin power connectors. The NVIDIA card has a TDP of 150 W and a suggested PSU of 450 W, while the AMD part has no TDP listed. The GTX 560 SE is 210 mm (8.3 inches) long, while the AMD module's dimensions are not specified.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The AMD FirePro W5170M is based on the "Tropo" chip using GCN 1.0 architecture, released as part of the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE uses the "GF114" chip with Fermi 2.0 architecture, belonging to the GeForce 500 generation.

The AMD part was released on 2014-08-24, while the NVIDIA card came out earlier on 2012-02-19. This two-year gap is reflected in their architectural capabilities. The GCN 1.0 architecture in the FirePro W5170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Fermi 2.0 architecture in the GTX 560 SE supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but notably lacks Vulkan support.

The AMD chip is manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, with a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The NVIDIA chip is also from TSMC but uses a 40 nm process, resulting in a much lower transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The AMD part's smaller, denser chip represents a more modern manufacturing approach that enables higher clock speeds and better compute efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W5170M wins decisively in compute performance. Its 13.5% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test, combined with its higher FP32 performance (1,184.0 GFLOPS versus 847.9 GFLOPS), makes it the clear choice for tasks that leverage general-purpose GPU computing. Its pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s is 67.5% higher than the NVIDIA part, suggesting better performance in fill-rate-limited scenarios like high-resolution texturing.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE wins in memory bandwidth, with 91.87 GB/s compared to the AMD part's 72.00 GB/s. This could benefit certain memory-intensive workloads, though the benchmark data does not confirm an actual performance advantage. The NVIDIA card also has more TMUs (48 versus 40) and more ROPs (24 versus 16), which may help in specific geometry-heavy or multisampling scenarios.

For users prioritizing modern API support, the AMD FirePro W5170M is the only choice, as it is the sole part with Vulkan support. Both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The AMD part's 2 GB memory capacity is double the NVIDIA card's 1 GB, which is advantageous for larger textures and datasets.

The GTX 560 SE, being a desktop card, wins in terms of physical installation flexibility for desktop systems, with its dual-slot design and standard PCIe interface. The FirePro W5170M's MXM module format is designed exclusively for laptop or specialized mobile workstations. In terms of power requirements, the GTX 560 SE lists a 150 W TDP and requires external power, while the FirePro W5170M has no listed TDP and uses no external power connectors, indicating it is a more power-efficient mobile solution.