AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data places the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 ahead of the AMD FirePro W600 in the sole benchmark test, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 7289 against 6223. That is a 17.1% advantage, a substantial margin in a compute-oriented workload. For any workload that relies heavily on OpenCL compute performance, the Quadro 5000 is the clear choice according to the measurements.

However, the FirePro W600 is not without its own arguments. It delivers 768.0 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is higher than the Quadro 5000's 722.3 GFLOPS. It also supports a newer DirectX version (12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0)) and includes Vulkan 1.2.170 support, which the Quadro 5000 lacks entirely. The FirePro W600 also draws far less power, with a TDP of 75 W compared to 152 W, and requires no power connectors, while the Quadro 5000 needs a single 6-pin connector.

The choice depends on the priority. If raw OpenCL score is the metric, the Quadro 5000 wins. If efficiency, modern API support, and multi-display output are the priorities, the FirePro W600 is the more versatile card. The data does not show a single dominant product; it shows two cards with different strengths.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and process nodes, which explains much of their behavioral divergence.

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 is built on the GF100 chip, using the Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 3,100 million transistors onto a die size of 529 mm², giving a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The AMD FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip, based on GCN 1.0 architecture, also built by TSMC but on a more advanced 28 nm process. It contains 1,500 million transistors on a much smaller die of 123 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The density difference is notable: the FirePro crams over twice as many transistors per square millimeter, a direct result of the newer process node.

Memory configurations also differ significantly. The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 320-bit bus, delivering 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s. The Quadro 5000 has more than double the memory bandwidth, which can be critical in memory-bound compute tasks. Memory clock speeds are listed as 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) for the Quadro 5000 and 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the FirePro W600, but the bus width difference dominates the final bandwidth figure.

Compute unit configurations tell another story. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The FirePro has more shaders, but the Quadro has more TMUs and ROPs, which affects texturing and pixel output rates. The pixel rate for the Quadro 5000 is 11.29 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s for the FirePro W600. The texture rate is 22.57 GTexel/s for the Quadro versus 24.00 GTexel/s for the FirePro. Despite the Quadro's larger memory bus, the FirePro edges ahead in both pixel and texture throughput.

API support is another differentiating factor. The Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. The FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. This makes the FirePro more future-proof for modern applications that leverage Vulkan.

Physical and power characteristics differ as well. The Quadro 5000 is a dual-slot card, 248 mm long (9.8 inches) and 111 mm tall (4.4 inches), with a TDP of 152 W and a suggested PSU of 450 W. It requires one 6-pin power connector. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot card, 168 mm long (6.6 inches), 111 mm tall, and 20 mm wide (0.8 inches), with a TDP of just 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W. It requires no power connectors. The FirePro is shorter, thinner, and far more power-efficient.

Display outputs also differ markedly. The Quadro 5000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The FirePro W600 offers 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it a stronger candidate for multi-monitor or video-wall setups.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scored 7289, while the AMD FirePro W600 scored 6223. The Quadro 5000 wins this test with a delta of 17.1%. This is the only benchmark in the head-to-head set, and the Quadro 5000 claims the sole win, with winsA equal to 1 and winsB equal to 0.

To contextualize the Quadro 5000's score, its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750 with an average score of 7222 (0.9% behind), the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile at 7203 (1.2% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560 SE at 7171 (1.6% behind), and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 at 7170 (1.7% behind). The Quadro 5000 sits just ahead of this cluster, but the margins are tight: less than 2% separates it from four other products. Its percentile rank among all GPUs is 40.

The FirePro W600's score of 6223 places it near the AMD Radeon HD 6950, which averages 6210 (just 0.2% behind). The FirePro also sits close to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, both averaging 6270, which are 0.7% ahead of the FirePro. The NVIDIA Quadro K620 averages 6282, 0.9% ahead. The FirePro's percentile rank is 36, four points lower than the Quadro 5000's rank of 40.

The 17.1% gap between the two cards in the head-to-head test is far larger than the differences seen among their nearest rivals. The Quadro 5000's advantage over the FirePro W600 is not a marginal one; it is a clear, measurable lead in this specific compute benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7289, while the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223, giving the Quadro 5000 a 17.1% lead in this test.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 has a TDP of 75 W and requires no power connectors, whereas the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has a TDP of 152 W and requires one 6-pin connector. The FirePro also suggests a 250 W PSU versus 450 W for the Quadro.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: No. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12, but the FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan support.

Q: How do the memory bandwidths compare?

A: The Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro offers nearly double the bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The FirePro W600 has 768.0 GFLOPS, slightly ahead of the Quadro 5000's 722.3 GFLOPS, despite the Quadro's higher OpenCL benchmark score.

Q: How many display outputs does each card have?

A: The FirePro W600 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Quadro 5000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 wins in the recorded OpenCL compute benchmark, and it also leads in memory bandwidth with 120.0 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. Its 320-bit bus and larger 2.5 GB frame buffer make it better suited for workloads that demand high bandwidth and larger memory pools. For compute-heavy tasks that rely on OpenCL, the data clearly favors the Quadro 5000.

The AMD FirePro W600 wins on efficiency and modern features. Its 75 W TDP, single-slot design, and lack of power connectors make it easier to integrate into dense or low-power systems. Its support for Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1) gives it an API advantage over the Quadro 5000. Its 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it the obvious choice for multi-display configurations. Its FP32 throughput of 768.0 GFLOPS is also higher than the Quadro's 722.3 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s and texture rate of 24.00 GTexel/s both exceed the Quadro's corresponding figures of 11.29 GPixel/s and 22.57 GTexel/s.

The two cards are not direct substitutes. The Quadro 5000 is a dual-slot, high-power board with a strong OpenCL score and superior memory bandwidth. The FirePro W600 is a single-slot, low-power board with modern API support and extensive display output. The Quadro is the compute performer; the FirePro is the efficiency and connectivity specialist. Depending on the workload, either card could be the correct choice, but the data does not support calling one a universal winner.