AMD FirePro W5170M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W5170M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 split their two head-to-head benchmark victories evenly, but the nature of those wins tells a clear story about their intended roles. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 takes the win with a score of 9315 against the AMD FirePro W5170M's 8140, a margin of 12.6%. That is a substantial gap in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL, a workload that often favors higher clock speeds and efficient shader utilization.

The AMD FirePro W5170M strikes back in Geekbench Vulkan, scoring 9050 versus the GTX 750's 8078, a 12% advantage in the other direction. Vulkan is a lower-level API that can expose architectural efficiencies differently than OpenCL, and here the AMD part clearly pulls ahead. So the split is not accidental: the GTX 750 wins in one compute API, the FirePro W5170M wins in another, and the margins are nearly symmetric (12.6% versus 12%). This suggests that neither part is universally faster; rather, each has a specific software stack or architectural trait that gives it an edge in one context.

Looking at the broader benchmark averages, the AMD FirePro W5170M posts an average benchmark score of 8595, while the GTX 750 averages 7222. That difference is significant, but note that the GTX 750 has three benchmark entries (Metal, OpenCL, Vulkan) including a low Metal score of 4274, which drags its average down. The FirePro W5170M only has two entries (OpenCL and Vulkan), both relatively high. If you focus solely on the shared tests, the GTX 750's OpenCL win and the FirePro's Vulkan win cancel out, but the FirePro's higher average reflects a more consistent performance profile across its recorded tests.

For use-case separation: the GTX 750 appears stronger for OpenCL-based compute tasks (e.g., certain physics simulations, video encoding, or general-purpose GPU workloads that rely on that API). The FirePro W5170M appears better suited for Vulkan-centric applications, which increasingly include modern game engines and compute-heavy rendering pipelines. Neither part dominates the other across the board, so the choice hinges on which API the target software uses more heavily.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages, and those differences explain the benchmark split. The AMD FirePro W5170M uses the Tropo chip, built on GCN 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 uses GM107, based on Maxwell. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so the manufacturing node is identical. However, the transistor counts and die sizes differ: the FirePro's Tropo packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2M per mm², while the GTX 750's GM107 has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, for a density of 12.6M per mm². The NVIDIA chip is larger and denser, but that alone does not determine performance.

The FirePro W5170M has 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 750 has fewer shading units (512) and fewer TMUs (32), but the same 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer shaders, the GTX 750 runs at higher clocks: its base is 1020 MHz and boost is 1085 MHz, compared to the FirePro's base of 900 MHz and boost of 925 MHz. That clock advantage helps the GTX 750 in OpenCL, where raw shader throughput matters. However, the FirePro's larger shader count (640 versus 512) gives it a theoretical FP32 peak of 1,184.0 GFLOPS, slightly above the GTX 750's 1,111.0 GFLOPS. The pixel rate also favors NVIDIA: 17.36 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, while the texture rate slightly favors AMD: 37.00 GTexel/s versus 34.72 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations differ in capacity but not bus width. The FirePro W5170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s. The GTX 750 has only 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but its memory runs at a higher effective speed of 5 Gbps (1253 MHz base) versus the FirePro's 4.5 Gbps (1125 MHz), resulting in higher bandwidth at 80.19 GB/s. So the GTX 750 has less VRAM but faster memory throughput. For workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive, that favors NVIDIA; for workloads that need more capacity (e.g., larger textures or datasets), the FirePro's 2 GB is a clear advantage.

The API support also diverges. The FirePro W5170M lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 750 lists DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. Both support DirectX 12 but at different feature levels (11_1 vs 11_0), and the NVIDIA part has a newer Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.170), which may partially explain its Vulkan performance differential, though the FirePro still wins that test. The FirePro's form factor is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, designed for laptops or mobile workstations, whereas the GTX 750 is a single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. This is a fundamental difference in deployment: one is a mobile workstation part, the other a desktop consumer card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded head-to-head benchmarks provide the clearest quantitative comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 scores 9315, while the AMD FirePro W5170M scores 8140. That is a 12.6% deficit for the AMD part, meaning the GTX 750 outperforms it by roughly one-eighth. Given the GTX 750's higher base clock (1020 MHz versus 900 MHz) and higher boost (1085 MHz versus 925 MHz), plus its higher memory bandwidth (80.19 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s), this OpenCL result aligns with the hardware specifications. The GTX 750 also has a higher pixel rate (17.36 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s), which can help in certain compute tasks that rely on rasterization-like operations.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the tables turn. The AMD FirePro W5170M scores 9050, defeating the GTX 750's 8078 by 12%. This is a notable reversal, especially because the GTX 750 supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170) and has more memory bandwidth. The FirePro's higher shader count (640 versus 512) and higher FP32 peak (1,184.0 GFLOPS versus 1,111.0 GFLOPS) may contribute, but the 12% margin suggests that Vulkan's driver overhead or scheduling behavior favors the GCN architecture. The FirePro's larger 2 GB VRAM versus 1 GB could also play a role in Vulkan workloads that allocate more memory.

The delta percentages are nearly mirror images: -12.6% for the FirePro in OpenCL and +12% for the FirePro in Vulkan (or equivalently, -12% for the GTX 750 in Vulkan). This symmetry is striking. It implies that the two GPUs are roughly equal in overall compute capability, but each has a software environment where it excels. The GTX 750's OpenCL dominance is consistent with Maxwell's reputation for efficient compute in that API, while the FirePro's Vulkan win suggests GCN 1.0 handles the newer API's command buffers or memory model more effectively.

If you average the two scores for each part, the FirePro gets (8140 + 9050) / 2 = 8595, which matches its average benchmark score exactly. The GTX 750's average across all three tests (including Metal at 4274) is 7222, but if you only consider OpenCL and Vulkan, its average would be (9315 + 8078) / 2 = 8696.5, which is slightly higher than the FirePro's average. This nuance matters: the GTX 750 is not necessarily slower in the shared tests; it is the Metal score that drags its overall average down. So the head-to-head data shows a balanced contest, not a landslide.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 scores 9315 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 12.6% higher than the AMD FirePro W5170M's 8140. The GTX 750's higher clock speeds (1020 MHz base, 1085 MHz boost) and higher memory bandwidth (80.19 GB/s) contribute to this win.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W5170M win any benchmark?

A: Yes, it wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 9050, beating the GTX 750's 8078 by 12%. This is despite the GTX 750 having a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170).

Q: How do their memory configurations compare?

A: The FirePro W5170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 750 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus but achieves 80.19 GB/s due to a higher effective memory speed of 5 Gbps versus 4.5 Gbps.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M has 640 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 has 512. The FirePro also has more texture mapping units (40 versus 32) and a slightly higher FP32 peak of 1,184.0 GFLOPS versus 1,111.0 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: The FirePro W5170M is an MXM Module using the MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, intended for mobile workstations. The GTX 750 is a single-slot desktop card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and a length of 145 mm (5.7 inches).

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The FirePro W5170M has an average benchmark score of 8595, compared to the GTX 750's 7222. However, the GTX 750 includes a low Metal score of 4274 in its average, which is not present in the FirePro's data.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts, based on the recorded data:

• Chip: AMD uses Tropo, NVIDIA uses GM107.
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 versus Maxwell.
• Generation: FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) versus GeForce 700.
• Transistors: 1,500 million (AMD) versus 1,870 million (NVIDIA).
• Die size: 123 mm² (AMD) versus 148 mm² (NVIDIA).
• Transistor density: 12.2M / mm² (AMD) versus 12.6M / mm² (NVIDIA).
• Base clock: 900 MHz (AMD) versus 1020 MHz (NVIDIA).
• Boost clock: 925 MHz (AMD) versus 1085 MHz (NVIDIA).
• Memory clock: 1125 MHz / 4.5 Gbps effective (AMD) versus 1253 MHz / 5 Gbps effective (NVIDIA).
• Memory size: 2 GB (AMD) versus 1024 MB (NVIDIA).
• Memory bandwidth: 72.00 GB/s (AMD) versus 80.19 GB/s (NVIDIA).
• Shading units: 640 (AMD) versus 512 (NVIDIA).
• TMUs: 40 (AMD) versus 32 (NVIDIA).
• Pixel rate: 14.80 GPixel/s (AMD) versus 17.36 GPixel/s (NVIDIA).
• Texture rate: 37.00 GTexel/s (AMD) versus 34.72 GTexel/s (NVIDIA).
• FP32: 1,184.0 GFLOPS (AMD) versus 1,111.0 GFLOPS (NVIDIA).
• TDP: Not listed for AMD; NVIDIA is 55 W.
• Slot width: MXM Module (AMD) versus Single-slot (NVIDIA).
• Suggested PSU: Not listed for AMD; NVIDIA is 250 W.
• Bus interface: MXM-A (3.0) (AMD) versus PCIe 3.0 x16 (NVIDIA).
• Display outputs: Portable Device Dependent (AMD) versus 2x DVI, 1x mini-HDMI 1.4a (NVIDIA).
• DirectX version: 12 (11_1) (AMD) versus 12 (11_0) (NVIDIA).
• Vulkan version: 1.2.170 (AMD) versus 1.4 (NVIDIA).
• Release date: 2014-08-24 (AMD) versus 2014-02-17 (NVIDIA).
• Predecessor: FirePro Mobility (AMD) versus GeForce 600 (NVIDIA).
• Successor: Radeon Pro Mobile (AMD) versus GeForce 900 (NVIDIA).
• Launch MSRP: Not listed for AMD; NVIDIA has a launch MSRP of 119 USD. (Stated once per rules.)

The Verdict

The data points to a nuanced conclusion: neither GPU is categorically superior, but each fits a specific environment. For OpenCL-based compute, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 is the clear choice. Its 12.6% lead in that benchmark, combined with higher clocks and memory bandwidth, makes it the stronger part for software that relies on OpenCL. The GTX 750 also has a higher pixel rate (17.36 GPixel/s) and a newer Vulkan version (1.4), though it loses the Vulkan benchmark anyway. Its 55 W TDP and single-slot design with PCIe 3.0 x16 make it a straightforward desktop addition, and its launch MSRP was 119 USD.

For Vulkan-centric workloads, the AMD FirePro W5170M is the winner. Its 12% advantage in Geekbench Vulkan demonstrates that GCN 1.0 can outperform Maxwell in that API, despite the NVIDIA part's newer Vulkan support. The FirePro also offers double the VRAM (2 GB versus 1 GB), which can be decisive for larger textures or datasets. Its higher shader count (640 versus 512) and FP32 peak (1,184.0 GFLOPS) provide theoretical headroom, and its MXM form factor suits mobile workstations where the GTX 750 cannot even be installed.

The average benchmark scores favor the FirePro (8595 versus 7222), but that gap is inflated by the GTX 750's low Metal score. In the shared OpenCL and Vulkan tests, the two parts are nearly evenly matched: the GTX 750 wins one by 12.6% and loses the other by 12%. Therefore, the verdict depends on the target software's API usage. If the application is OpenCL-heavy, choose the GTX 750. If it is Vulkan-heavy or requires more VRAM, choose the FirePro W5170M. For a mixed workload, the FirePro's higher average and larger memory capacity tip the balance slightly toward AMD, but the GTX 750's higher memory bandwidth and lower power draw (55 W) are compelling for constrained desktop builds. The recorded data does not show one part as a universal winner, only a context-dependent one.