AMD FirePro W5170M vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data is unambiguous, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins both recorded head-to-head benchmarks over the AMD FirePro W5170M by a massive margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 points against 8,140 points for the FirePro W5170M, a 344.9% advantage. The same pattern repeats in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Quadro P4000 reaches 41,112 points, a 361.7% lead over the FirePro W5170M's 9,050 points.

The scale of this victory is not a close contest; the delta between the two cards in these tests is so large that the AMD part is not competitive in raw compute workloads. The Quadro P4000's average benchmark score sits at 9,665, placing it in the 47th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W5170M averages 8,595 and ranks in the 44th percentile. A two-point percentile gap may look modest, but the head-to-head deltas of 344.9% and 361.7% reveal the true separation in these specific compute tests.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces the Quadro P4000's standing. The database places the Quadro P4000 within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653 average), 0.2% of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645), and 0.3% of the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637); it is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 (9,716). For the FirePro W5170M, the nearest rivals are the Intel Arc A380 (8,558, 0.4% behind), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 (8,686, 1.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon HD 8870M (8,462, 1.6% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (8,458, 1.6% behind). The FirePro W5170M therefore competes with entry-level and older mobile parts, while the Quadro P4000 sits alongside mid-range workstation cards.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural eras and market positions. The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 uses the GP104 chip built on the Pascal architecture, manufactured at 16 nm by TSMC. It packs 7,200 million transistors into a 314 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.9 million per square millimeter. The AMD FirePro W5170M, by contrast, uses the Tropo chip based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC but on a 28 nm process. It contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The process node difference explains much of the gap in density: 16 nm versus 28 nm allows the NVIDIA part to fit nearly five times the transistor count on a die that is only about 2.5 times larger.

Compute resources follow the same pattern. The Quadro P4000 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 render output units. The FirePro W5170M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate for the Quadro P4000 is 94.72 GPixel/s, versus 14.80 GPixel/s for the FirePro W5170M. Texture rate is 165.8 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s. Floating point performance in FP32 is 5.304 TFLOPS for the NVIDIA card, while the AMD card delivers 1,184.0 GFLOPS. The Quadro P4000 also lists FP16 performance at 82.88 GFLOPS (at a 1:64 ratio), while the FirePro W5170M has no recorded FP16 figure.

Clock speeds tell a similar story. The Quadro P4000 runs at a base clock of 1,202 MHz and boosts to 1,480 MHz. The FirePro W5170M is clocked at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. Memory configurations differ as well: the Quadro P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth; the FirePro W5170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card's memory clock is listed at 1,901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective), while the AMD card's memory runs at 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Each of these differences compounds to produce the large benchmark gap.

API support also differs. The Quadro P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W5170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both are listed as end-of-life products. The Quadro P4000 was released in February 2017 and succeeded the Quadro Maxwell line; the FirePro W5170M arrived in August 2014, succeeding FirePro Mobility. The form factors differ too: the Quadro P4000 is a single-slot card with one 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested power supply, while the FirePro W5170M is an MXM module with no power connectors and a portable-device-dependent display output.

The Verdict

For any workload that relies on compute throughput, the data points to the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 without qualification. The 344.9% and 361.7% head-to-head leads in Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan are not marginal improvements; they are generation-spanning advantages. The Quadro P4000's FP32 figure of 5.304 TFLOPS is roughly 4.5 times the FirePro W5170M's 1,184.0 GFLOPS. Memory bandwidth is 243.3 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s, a 3.4x difference. Even the shading unit count is 1,792 versus 640, a 2.8x gap. Every major compute metric in the database favors the NVIDIA card.

The AMD FirePro W5170M is not without its place, but that place is clearly at the lower end of the spectrum. Its nearest rival set includes the Intel Arc A380, the NVIDIA Quadro P2200, the AMD Radeon HD 8870M, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330; none of those cards is a high-end workstation part. The Quadro P4000, meanwhile, sits within 0.5% of the Tesla C2070; the Tesla C2070 is a server-grade GPU, and the Radeon Pro WX 2100 and GTX 960M are consumer mobile parts. The Quadro P4000 belongs to the Pascal generation of professional GPUs, between Quadro Maxwell and Quadro Volta. The FirePro W5170M belongs to the GCN 1.0 FirePro Mobile generation, between FirePro Mobility and Radeon Pro Mobile.

Pick the Quadro P4000 for any task that requires high FP32 throughput, large memory capacity, or broad API coverage. The data shows it is the only viable choice between these two for compute-heavy rendering, simulation, or data processing tasks. Pick the FirePro W5170M only if the workload fits within its 2 GB memory limit and its lower bandwidth envelope; otherwise, the benchmark record favors NVIDIA at every step.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, and by how much in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins, scoring 36,212 against 8,140 for the AMD FirePro W5170M, a 344.9% difference.

Q: What is the largest head-to-head advantage in the database between these two cards?

A: The Geekbench Vulkan test shows the largest delta: the Quadro P4000 scores 41,786 versus 9,050, a 361.7% lead.

Q: How does the FirePro W5170M compare to its nearest rivals in average benchmark score?

A: The FirePro W5170M averages 8,595, placing it 0.4% behind the Intel Arc A380, 1.1% behind the NVIDIA Quadro P2200, and 1.6% ahead of both the AMD Radeon HD 8870M and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330.

Q: What is the transistor and process node difference between the two GPUs?

A: The Quadro P4000 uses 7,200 million transistors on a 16 nm TSMC process with a 314 mm² die; the FirePro W5170M uses 1,500 million transistors on a 28 nm TSMC process with a 123 mm² die.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro W5170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but their Vulkan versions differ: 1.4 for the Quadro P4000 and 1.2.170 for the FirePro W5170M.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: The Quadro P4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 243.3 GB/s bandwidth; the FirePro W5170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins in every recorded head-to-head test, and the breadth of its advantages covers most professional use cases. In Geekbench OpenCL, which reflects general-purpose GPU compute performance, the Quadro P4000's 36,212 score dwarfs the FirePro W5170M's 8,140. In Geekbench Vulkan, the Quadro P4000's 41,786 versus 9,050 shows a similar dominance for graphics API workloads. Beyond these two tests, the Quadro P4000 has a full suite of Passmark scores: 181 in DirectX 9, 86 in DirectX 11, 66 in DirectX 10, 40 in DirectX 12, 786 in G2D, 11,466 in G3D, and 4,913 in GPU compute. The FirePro W5170M has no recorded Passmark results in the database, so no direct comparison is possible there; the Quadro P4000's 11,466 G3D score and 4,913 compute score stand alone as evidence of its stronger profile.

Use the Quadro P4000 for rendering, simulation, compute, and any workload with large data sets; its 8 GB memory capacity and 243.3 GB/s bandwidth give it far more headroom than the FirePro W5170M's 2 GB and 72.00 GB/s. The Quadro P4000's 5.304 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is the kind of number that matters for double-precision-adjacent tasks, though the database records FP32 only. The FirePro W5170M, with its 1,184.0 GFLOPS, 640 shading units, and 16 ROPs, is suited only to light mobile workloads where an MXM module form factor and low power draw are required. The Quadro P4000 needs a 300 W suggested power supply and a 6-pin connector; the FirePro W5170M has no power connector and is a portable-device-dependent display output. The FirePro W5170M is a mobile part by design, but its compute ceiling is low.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field recorded. Process node: 16 nm for the Quadro P4000 versus 28 nm for the FirePro W5170M. Transistors: 7,200 million versus 1,500 million. Die size: 314 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density: 22.9 million per mm² versus 12.2 million per mm². Base clock: 1,202 MHz versus 900 MHz. Boost clock: 1,480 MHz versus 925 MHz. Memory clock: 1,901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) versus 1,125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). Memory size: 8 GB versus 2 GB. Memory bus width: 256 bit versus 128 bit. Memory bandwidth: 243.3 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s. Shading units: 1,792 versus 640. TMUs: 112 versus 40. ROPs: 64 versus 16. Pixel rate: 94.72 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 165.8 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s. FP32: 5.304 TFLOPS versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS. FP16: 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64) versus none recorded. TDP: 105 W versus none recorded. Slot width: single-slot versus MXM module. Power connectors: 1x 6-pin versus none. Suggested PSU: 300 W versus none recorded. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs: 4x DisplayPort 1.4a versus portable-device-dependent. DirectX: 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1). Vulkan: 1.4 versus 1.2.170. Release date: February 2017 versus August 2014. Predecessor: Quadro Maxwell versus FirePro Mobility. Successor: Quadro Volta versus Radeon Pro Mobile. The Quadro P4000 has a launch MSRP of 815 USD; the FirePro W5170M has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life products.