AMD FirePro W5170M vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance advantage for the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 in every shared benchmark. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro K5000 scores 11,418 against the AMD FirePro W5170M’s 8,140, a 40.3% lead. That gap is substantial, placing the NVIDIA card in a different performance tier for compute workloads. In Geekbench Vulkan, the margin narrows but remains significant: the Quadro K5000 posts 11,169 versus 9,050 for the FirePro, a 23.4% advantage. Across both tests, the NVIDIA card wins outright with a 2-0 sweep.

Context from the database’s nearest rival data reinforces this. The Quadro K5000’s average benchmark score is 9,637, landing it at the 46th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest competitors include the GeForce GTX 960M (average 9,645, delta -0.1%), the Radeon Pro WX 2100 (average 9,653, delta -0.2%), and the Quadro P4000 (average 9,665, delta -0.3%). The performance is essentially neck-and-neck with those cards, all within a fraction of a percent. The AMD FirePro W5170M, by contrast, averages 8,595, sitting at the 44th percentile. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A380 (average 8,558, delta +0.4%), the Quadro P2200 (average 8,686, delta -1.1%), and the Radeon HD 8870M (average 8,462, delta +1.6%). The FirePro is competitive with those, but the Quadro K5000 sits a full 1,087 points higher on average.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 is the faster GPU in every tested workload. If the priority is raw compute performance, particularly in OpenCL or Vulkan applications, the Quadro K5000 is the clear choice. Its 40.3% lead in OpenCL is decisive, and even in Vulkan it holds a comfortable 23.4% edge. The AMD FirePro W5170M does not win a single head-to-head test. However, the FirePro is a mobile part, built for portability, while the Quadro K5000 is a dual-slot desktop card. The data does not suggest the FirePro is without merit, it is simply slower. For users who can accommodate the larger form factor, the Quadro K5000 delivers more compute power. For those needing a mobile solution, the FirePro W5170M is the only option in this pairing, but they should accept the lower performance. The verdict is straightforward: the data favors the Quadro K5000 for every performance metric.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural designs. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 is built on the Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip. The AMD FirePro W5170M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, based on the Tropo chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge sharply. The Quadro K5000 packs 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0 million per square millimeter. The FirePro W5170M contains 1,500 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die, giving it a slightly higher density of 12.2 million per square millimeter.

The shading resources are also very different. The Quadro K5000 has 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro W5170M has only 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the NVIDIA card has more than double the shading units and triple the texture units. Pixel throughput reflects this: the Quadro K5000 delivers 22.59 GPixel/s and 90.37 GTexel/s, while the FirePro manages 14.80 GPixel/s and 37.00 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is similarly lopsided: 2.169 TFLOPS for the Quadro versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, so that is not a differentiator.

Specification Differences

The two cards also differ substantially in memory and board specifications. The Quadro K5000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W5170M has only 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 72.00 GB/s. That is less than half the bandwidth. Clock speeds are also not identical: the Quadro K5000 runs at a base and boost of 706 MHz, while the FirePro W5170M has a base of 900 MHz and a boost of 925 MHz. The FirePro has a higher clock, but the Quadro compensates with far more execution units.

The power and form factor profiles are opposites. The Quadro K5000 has a TDP of 122 W, is dual-slot, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and needs a 300 W power supply. It is a desktop part, 267 mm long and 111 mm high, with a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. The FirePro W5170M is an MXM module, consumes no external power connectors, and has no suggested PSU, as it is designed for laptops. Its bus interface is MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs differ too: the Quadro has 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the FirePro’s outputs are portable-device dependent.

The API support is close but not identical. Both support DirectX 12, but the Quadro is listed as 12 (11_0) while the FirePro is 12 (11_1). Both have OpenGL 4.6. For Vulkan, the Quadro supports version 1.2.175, and the FirePro supports 1.2.170. Release dates are different: the Quadro launched on August 16, 2012, with a launch MSRP of 2,499 USD. The FirePro came later, on August 24, 2014, and has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 scores 11,418 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 40.3% higher than the AMD FirePro W5170M’s 8,140.

Q: Is the Quadro K5000 also faster in Vulkan?

A: Yes. The Quadro K5000 scores 11,169 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the FirePro W5170M’s 9,050 by 23.4%.

Q: How does the FirePro W5170M compare to its own rivals?

A: The FirePro W5170M has an average score of 8,595, which puts it 0.4% above the Intel Arc A380, 1.6% above the Radeon HD 8870M, and 1.6% above the GeForce MX330. It is 1.1% behind the Quadro P2200.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Quadro K5000 has 172.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the FirePro W5170M has 72.00 GB/s. The Quadro has a 256-bit bus and 4 GB, while the FirePro has a 128-bit bus and 2 GB.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which card has higher clock speeds?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost of 925 MHz. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 has a base and boost of 706 MHz.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 wins every benchmark category where both are tested. It is the better choice for any application that relies on OpenCL compute, such as scientific simulation, data processing, or rendering workloads. Its 40.3% lead in OpenCL is the largest margin between the two, so those tasks will feel significantly faster. Vulkan performance is also superior, with a 23.4% lead, making it the stronger pick for Vulkan-based applications or games. The Quadro also offers double the memory size (4 GB versus 2 GB) and much higher bandwidth, which helps with large datasets or high-resolution textures.

The AMD FirePro W5170M does not win any head-to-head benchmark, but it has its own niche. As an MXM module with no external power connectors, it is a mobile GPU, designed to fit in a portable device. The Quadro K5000 is a dual-slot desktop card that needs a 300 W power supply and a PCIe 2.0 x16 slot. For users who need a discrete GPU in a thin laptop, the FirePro W5170M is the only viable option here. It also has a higher base clock (900 MHz versus 706 MHz), which could help in single-threaded tasks that are clock-bound. However, the data shows no actual workload where that advantage translates to a win. The FirePro also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) with a slightly newer feature level than the Quadro’s 11_0.

In summary, the Quadro K5000 is the performance leader. The FirePro W5170M is the form-factor leader, but only for portable systems. Users with a desktop chassis should choose the Quadro. Users with a mobile requirement have no choice but the FirePro, albeit with lower scores.