AMD FirePro W5170M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits the two mobile graphics solutions cleanly by workload type. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M takes the OpenCL compute crown, while the AMD FirePro W5170M answers back in Vulkan graphics. Each card wins exactly one of the two head-to-head tests, making this a genuinely balanced matchup rather than a one-sided affair.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 960M posts 11,045 points against the FirePro W5170M's 8,140, a 35.7% advantage that represents the largest single-test gap in this comparison. This suggests the NVIDIA part holds a significant edge in raw compute throughput, particularly for workloads that leverage OpenCL's general-purpose GPU capabilities. The GTX 960M's higher clock speeds and superior texture and pixel fill rates likely contribute to this result, as the data shows it reaching 47.04 GTexel/s and 18.82 GPixel/s versus the AMD part's 37.00 GTexel/s and 14.80 GPixel/s.

The AMD FirePro W5170M, however, flips the script in Geekbench Vulkan. It scores 9,050 against the GTX 960M's 8,245, an 8.9% margin that demonstrates its strength in modern graphics API workloads. This is notable because the GTX 960M carries a higher average benchmark score overall (9,645 versus 8,595) and a better percentile ranking (46th versus 44th percentile among all GPUs). Yet in this specific Vulkan test, the older GCN 1.0 architecture outperforms the newer Maxwell design, suggesting AMD's driver optimization or hardware feature set handles Vulkan's draw call and command buffer patterns more efficiently.

The practical takeaway: users prioritizing OpenCL compute, such as GPU-accelerated rendering or scientific calculations, should favor the GTX 960M. Users whose workloads rely heavily on Vulkan, whether for gaming or graphics applications built around that API, will find the FirePro W5170M surprisingly competitive despite its lower overall average score.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M averages 9,645 across its recorded benchmarks, placing it in the 46th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD FirePro W5170M averages 8,595, sitting in the 44th percentile.

Q: How large is the OpenCL performance gap between the two cards?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 960M scores 11,045 versus the FirePro W5170M's 8,140, a 35.7% difference in favor of the NVIDIA part.

Q: Does the AMD card beat the NVIDIA card in any benchmark?

A: Yes. In Geekbench Vulkan, the FirePro W5170M scores 9,050 against the GTX 960M's 8,245, giving AMD an 8.9% lead in that specific test.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card based on average score?

A: The GTX 960M sits within 0.7% of the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637), AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653), NVIDIA Quadro P4000 (9,665), and NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9,716). The FirePro W5170M is closest to the Intel Arc A380 (8,558, 0.4% ahead), NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,686, 1.1% behind), AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, 1.6% ahead), and NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458, 1.6% ahead).

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The GTX 960M carries 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W5170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus but lower bandwidth at 72.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card supports a newer DirectX version?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 960M has Vulkan 1.4 support versus the FirePro's Vulkan 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two recorded benchmark comparisons reveal a clear division of strengths. Starting with Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 960M delivers 11,045 points, which is 2,905 points ahead of the FirePro W5170M's 8,140. That 35.7% delta is substantial by any measure. It aligns with the NVIDIA card's higher clock profile: the GTX 960M runs at a 1,097 MHz base and 1,176 MHz boost, while the AMD part operates at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. The GTX 960M also produces 1.505 TFLOPS of FP32 compute versus the FirePro's 1,184.0 GFLOPS, reinforcing the compute advantage seen in OpenCL.

The Vulkan test tells a different story. The FirePro W5170M scores 9,050, beating the GTX 960M's 8,245 by 805 points, an 8.9% margin. This result is notable because the GTX 960M has the higher average benchmark score (9,645 versus 8,595) and the better percentile placement (46th versus 44th). The AMD card's Vulkan win suggests that raw compute throughput is not the sole determinant of graphics API performance. The FirePro's GCN 1.0 architecture, despite its lower clock speeds and fill rates, evidently handles Vulkan's explicit multi-threading and command submission model more effectively in this test.

Context from the nearest rivals helps interpret these scores. The GTX 960M's OpenCL result of 11,045 is significantly above its own average of 9,645, showing that OpenCL is a strong suite for this card. Its Vulkan score of 8,245, by contrast, is below its average, indicating relative weakness in that API. The FirePro W5170M shows the opposite pattern: its Vulkan score of 9,050 exceeds its 8,595 average, while its OpenCL score of 8,140 falls below it. Each card's benchmark profile is thus internally consistent, with strengths and weaknesses that align with their architectural designs.

For users comparing these two in real-world terms, the 35.7% OpenCL gap is the most decisive number in the dataset. It dwarfs the 8.9% Vulkan margin and suggests that for compute-heavy tasks, the GTX 960M is the clear choice. The Vulkan result, while meaningful, represents a narrower victory and one that may not translate across all graphics workloads.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across several specification categories, with the most consequential differences appearing in memory capacity, clock speeds, and interface configuration.

Memory capacity is a straightforward differentiator: the GTX 960M offers 4 GB of GDDR5, double the FirePro W5170M's 2 GB. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but bandwidth favors NVIDIA at 80.19 GB/s versus AMD's 72.00 GB/s. Memory clock rates also differ, with the GTX 960M running at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) compared to the FirePro's 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). For applications that exceed 2 GB of VRAM usage, the GTX 960M holds a clear advantage that cannot be mitigated by the AMD card's other strengths.

Clock speeds show NVIDIA leading across the board. The GTX 960M's base clock of 1,097 MHz and boost clock of 1,176 MHz substantially exceed the FirePro's 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. This clock advantage translates directly into higher fill rates: 18.82 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s for pixel throughput, and 47.04 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s for texture throughput. The FP32 compute figures follow the same pattern, with the GTX 960M at 1.505 TFLOPS and the FirePro at 1,184.0 GFLOPS.

The bus interface presents a notable difference. The GTX 960M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the FirePro W5170M uses MXM-A (3.0). Both are MXM modules, and neither requires external power connectors, but the different MXM form factors may affect compatibility with specific laptop chassis designs. Display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for both, meaning the actual ports depend on the host system.

In terms of API support, the FirePro W5170M has a slight edge in DirectX version, supporting DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the GTX 960M's DirectX 12 (11_0). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 960M offers Vulkan 1.4 support while the FirePro is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 960M's newer Vulkan version potentially explains its higher average score, though the FirePro's superior Vulkan benchmark result complicates that interpretation.

The transistor counts and die sizes also differ: the GTX 960M packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the FirePro W5170M has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Both use TSMC's 28 nm process, with nearly identical transistor densities (12.6M per mm² for NVIDIA, 12.2M per mm² for AMD). The GTX 960M's larger die and higher transistor count correlate with its higher compute output, though the FirePro achieves respectable performance from a more compact design.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental. The GTX 960M is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture using the GM107 chip, part of the GeForce 900M generation. The FirePro W5170M employs AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, belonging to the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation. These are different design philosophies from different eras of GPU development, which explains the divergent benchmark results.

Both cards feature 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. The identical core counts make clock speed the primary differentiator in raw throughput. The GTX 960M's higher clocks produce its 35.7% OpenCL advantage, while the FirePro's architecture compensates in Vulkan through different scheduling and memory management approaches inherent to GCN 1.0.

The manufacturing details show both chips come from TSMC's 28 nm process, but with different physical characteristics. The GTX 960M's GM107 die measures 148 mm² and holds 1,870 million transistors. The FirePro's Tropo die is smaller at 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors. The density figures are nearly identical (12.6M versus 12.2M per mm²), suggesting both chips use similar transistor budgets per area, but the NVIDIA design allocates more total transistors to achieve higher peak performance.

Neither GPU includes dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those hardware features. The GTX 960M's Maxwell architecture is known for its power efficiency and strong compute-per-clock characteristics, which the data supports through its higher fill rates and FP32 output. The FirePro's GCN 1.0 architecture, designed originally for desktop Radeon cards, brings a different compute model that prioritizes asynchronous compute and graphics command efficiency.

The API differences trace back to architectural capabilities. The GTX 960M supports Vulkan 1.4, a newer specification than the FirePro's Vulkan 1.2.170, yet the AMD card outperforms it in the Vulkan benchmark. This suggests that GCN 1.0's hardware design, particularly its handling of draw calls and descriptor sets, gives it an edge in this specific workload despite the older API version. Conversely, the GTX 960M's Maxwell architecture excels in OpenCL, likely due to its higher clock speeds and more efficient compute dispatch.

The release dates place these chips about seven months apart, with the FirePro W5170M arriving in August 2014 and the GTX 960M in March 2015. Both have reached end-of-life status, with the GTX 960M succeeding the GeForce 800M and preceding GeForce 10 Mobile, while the FirePro W5170M follows the FirePro Mobility line and precedes Radeon Pro Mobile. These lineage details contextualize the architectural choices, showing each card as a product of its respective manufacturer's mobile GPU strategy at that time.