AMD FirePro W5170M vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear picture: the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins both recorded head-to-head tests against the AMD FirePro W5170M. The largest margin comes in the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the Quadro M2000M scores 10057 against the FirePro W5170M’s 8140, a 23.6% advantage. That is a decisive gap in raw compute throughput, one that will show up in any workload that leans heavily on OpenCL acceleration.

The Vulkan result is closer but still favors NVIDIA. The Quadro M2000M posts 9606, while the FirePro W5170M reaches 9050, a 6.1% lead. While not as dramatic as the OpenCL difference, this still represents a consistent win for the Quadro in graphics API performance. If you are looking at a mix of compute and rendering tasks, the Quadro M2000M holds the edge in both categories.

Looking at the broader database averages, the Quadro M2000M sits at 9832, placing it in the 47th percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro W5170M averages 8595, which lands in the 44th percentile. That 1237-point gap in average score translates into the Quadro being roughly 14.4% faster overall, a meaningful difference for any application that scales with GPU throughput.

The nearest rivals for the Quadro M2000M confirm its positioning. It sits 0.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 (9846), 0.3% ahead of the AMD FirePro W5000 (9803), 0.5% ahead of the GeForce GTX 1070 (9780), and 1.1% ahead of the Tesla M10 (9724). These are tight margins, meaning the Quadro M2000M is essentially performance-equivalent to a class of GPUs that were designed for much higher power envelopes. For the FirePro W5170M, the nearest rivals show it trading blows with lower-tier parts: it is 0.4% ahead of the Intel Arc A380 (8558), 1.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8686), and 1.6% ahead of both the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8462) and the GeForce MX330 (8458). The FirePro W5170M is clearly a step down in absolute performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 10057 in Geekbench OpenCL, beating the AMD FirePro W5170M’s 8140 by 23.6%. That is a substantial lead for any compute-oriented task.

Q: How do they compare in Vulkan performance?

A: The Quadro M2000M again wins, scoring 9606 against the FirePro W5170M’s 9050, a 6.1% advantage. Vulkan workloads still favor NVIDIA, but the margin is smaller than in OpenCL.

Q: What is the overall average benchmark score difference?

A: The Quadro M2000M averages 9832 across all recorded tests, while the FirePro W5170M averages 8595. That is a difference of 1237 points, roughly a 14.4% gap in favor of the Quadro.

Q: How does each GPU rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The Quadro M2000M is in the 47th percentile, while the FirePro W5170M sits in the 44th percentile. The Quadro is closer to the mid-range of the database, while the FirePro is slightly below that.

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The Quadro M2000M comes with 4 GB of GDDR5, twice the 2 GB found on the FirePro W5170M. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but the Quadro also has higher effective memory speed.

Q: Are there any benchmark wins for the FirePro W5170M?

A: No. The recorded head-to-head data shows the Quadro M2000M winning both the OpenCL and Vulkan tests. The FirePro W5170M has zero wins in the database’s direct comparisons.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M is the stronger GPU in every measured category. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score, and sits at a higher percentile ranking. For users who need consistent performance in OpenCL or Vulkan workloads, the Quadro M2000M is the clear choice.

The AMD FirePro W5170M is not without merit, but its strengths lie elsewhere. It is a lower-power part with a smaller die and fewer transistors, which may appeal to systems with strict thermal or space constraints. However, the benchmark results show it trailing by double digits in OpenCL and by a noticeable margin in Vulkan. If raw performance is the priority, the FirePro W5170M is the weaker option.

That said, the FirePro W5170M’s nearest rivals include the Quadro P2200, which beats it by only 1.1%. This suggests the FirePro is not far off from a capable professional GPU class, but it is still behind. The Quadro M2000M, by contrast, trades within 0.5% of a GeForce GTX 1070, a much more powerful desktop part. The database positions the Quadro M2000M as a more serious performer.

For a mobile workstation, the Quadro M2000M offers double the memory and a 23.6% OpenCL lead. That combination makes it the safer bet for compute-heavy tasks like rendering, simulation, or data processing. If the workload is lighter and the system is power-sensitive, the FirePro W5170M could suffice, but the data does not show any scenario where it outperforms the Quadro.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specifications beyond performance. The Quadro M2000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the FirePro W5170M is limited to 2 GB. Both have a 128-bit memory bus, but the Quadro’s effective memory speed is 5 Gbps compared to the FirePro’s 4.5 Gbps. This results in a bandwidth of 80.19 GB/s for the Quadro versus 72.00 GB/s for the FirePro, a 11.4% advantage for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds also favor the Quadro. Its base clock is 1098 MHz with a boost of 1137 MHz, while the FirePro runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. The Quadro’s memory clock is 1253 MHz, against the FirePro’s 1125 MHz. These higher clocks contribute to the Quadro’s superior pixel rate of 18.19 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, and a texture rate of 45.48 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute rating is 1,455.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro, compared to 1,184.0 GFLOPS for the FirePro, a 22.9% difference that mirrors the OpenCL gap.

The Quadro M2000M has a TDP of 55 W, while the FirePro W5170M has no recorded TDP in the database. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors and rely on portable device dependent display outputs. The bus interface is MXM-A (3.0) for both. They are both end-of-life products, but the Quadro was released on 2015-12-02, while the FirePro came earlier on 2014-08-24.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures are from different generations. The Quadro M2000M uses the GM107 chip based on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, while the FirePro W5170M uses the Tropo chip based on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process by TSMC, but the transistor counts differ: the Quadro has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the FirePro has 1,500 million on a 123 mm² die. The transistor density is similar, 12.6M per mm² for the Quadro versus 12.2M per mm² for the FirePro.

Both GPUs have 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation units. Neither has ray tracing or tensor cores. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX version difference is minor, but the Vulkan support is newer on the Quadro. The Quadro’s generation is listed as “Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M)”, while the FirePro is “FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)”. The Quadro’s predecessor is the Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is the Quadro Pascal-M. The FirePro’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M2000M wins in every benchmark category recorded. In OpenCL, it is 23.6% ahead, which makes it the better choice for compute-heavy tasks like scientific simulation, financial modeling, or any workload that leverages OpenCL for parallel processing. Its 4 GB memory also allows larger datasets to fit in VRAM, reducing the need for host memory transfers. The Vulkan win, though smaller at 6.1%, still favors the Quadro for modern graphics APIs, which are increasingly used in professional visualization and game engines.

The AMD FirePro W5170M does not win any recorded benchmark, but it has structural advantages that are not captured by the scores. Its 28 nm process and lower transistor count suggest a simpler design that may produce less heat, though no TDP is recorded for it. With 2 GB of memory, it is lighter on resources, which could be sufficient for lighter 2D or basic 3D tasks. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) support is slightly newer than the Quadro’s 11_0, though the practical difference is minimal in most applications. The FirePro also has a lower FP32 rating, which means it will draw less power under load, but the database does not record a TDP to confirm this.

For a user choosing between these two in a mobile workstation, the Quadro M2000M is the performance pick. It dominates in compute and graphics, has more memory, and higher bandwidth. The FirePro W5170M is the fallback option for systems where the Quadro is not available or where a smaller die size is preferred for thermal reasons. The data shows no scenario where the FirePro outperforms the Quadro, so the decision hinges on whether the Quadro’s advantages are needed. If they are, the Quadro is the only rational choice.