AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

# Where Each One Wins

The data splits cleanly between these two professional mobile/workstation GPUs, but only one benchmark category was measured head-to-head: Geekbench OpenCL. In that single direct comparison, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M dominates with a score of 22,920 against the AMD FirePro W600’s 6,223, a 268.3% advantage. That is not a marginal lead; it is a multiple-generation gap in raw compute throughput.

Looking beyond the single shared test, the Quadro M5000M has a much broader benchmark footprint. It was evaluated across nine separate workloads: Geekbench OpenCL, Geekbench Vulkan, PassMark DirectX 10, DirectX 11, DirectX 12, DirectX 9, G2D, G3D, and GPU Compute. Its scores range from a low of 29 in PassMark DirectX 12 to a high of 24,875 in Geekbench Vulkan. The Vulkan result is particularly notable, as it is the single highest score achieved by either card in any test. The FirePro W600, by contrast, has only one recorded benchmark result (Geekbench OpenCL), so its strengths outside of compute cannot be quantified from the available data.

In terms of dedicated benchmark wins, the M5000M takes all measured categories where both cards have data. The W600 has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison. However, the W600’s absence of results in DirectX, Vulkan, and 2D/3D workloads does not necessarily mean it would lose those tests—it simply means no data exists. The M5000M’s wins are therefore partly a function of data availability, but where direct comparison exists, the outcome is unambiguous.

The M5000M’s average benchmark score of 6,481 places it at the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the W600’s average of 6,223 sits at the 36th percentile. These percentile figures are very close, suggesting that in the broader GPU landscape, both cards occupy a similar tier of overall performance—despite the M5000M’s massive OpenCL advantage. This apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that the M5000M’s average includes several low DirectX scores (35, 54, 29, 119), which drag its mean down substantially. The W600’s single OpenCL score, while far lower than the M5000M’s OpenCL result, is not dragged down by weak legacy API tests. The M5000M is thus a card with very high compute peaks but uneven legacy DirectX performance, whereas the W600 is a more consistent, if lower-peaked, performer.

# The Verdict

For anyone whose workload is dominated by OpenCL compute, the NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is the only rational choice. Its 22,920 OpenCL score is 268.3% higher than the FirePro W600’s 6,223—a factor of 3.68x. No other interpretation of the data is possible. If the task is GPU-accelerated compute in OpenCL, the M5000M is categorically superior.

However, the verdict is not one-sided when considering the broader picture. The M5000M’s nearest rivals in average score include the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile (6,476, deltaPct 0.1%), NVIDIA GeForce GT 555M (6,493, deltaPct -0.2%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670M (6,513, deltaPct -0.5%), and Intel UHD Graphics P750 (6,554, deltaPct -1.1%). The M5000M is within 1.1% of all these cards in average score, meaning its overall performance profile is similar to mid-range mobile GPUs from several generations. The W600’s nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6,210, deltaPct 0.2%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (6,270, deltaPct -0.7%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6,270, deltaPct -0.7%), and NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6,282, deltaPct -0.9%). The W600 is within 0.9% of these cards, which span from a 2010-era desktop part to modern high-end RTX products—an indication that its single OpenCL score is not representative of typical modern GPU performance in that test.

For the FirePro W600, the case is about form factor and display capabilities rather than compute. It is a single-slot, 75 W card with six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, measuring 168 mm by 111 mm by 20 mm. The M5000M is an MXM Module with no display outputs of its own (portable device dependent) and a 100 W TDP. The W600 is designed for multi-display professional environments where six simultaneous outputs matter. The M5000M is designed for laptops and mobile workstations where the display outputs are handled by the host system. If the requirement is driving six monitors from a single-slot card, the W600 is the only option with that capability in this comparison.

The data also shows the M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. For modern API support, the M5000M is ahead in both DirectX feature level and Vulkan version.

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 22,920, while the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6,223. The deltaPct is 268.3% in favor of the M5000M. This means the M5000M delivers more than three and a half times the OpenCL performance of the W600. To put it differently, the W600 would need to run roughly 3.68 workloads in the time it takes the M5000M to complete one, assuming linear scaling.

This OpenCL result is consistent with the underlying hardware specifications. The M5000M has 1,536 shading units, 96 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, running at a base clock of 962 MHz with a boost of 1,051 MHz. It produces 3.229 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 100.9 GTexel/s of texture fill rate, and 67.26 GPixel/s of pixel fill rate. The W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, with no base or boost clock listed. Its FP32 output is 768.0 GFLOPS, its texture rate is 24.00 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate is 12.00 GPixel/s. In every computational throughput metric, the M5000M is ahead by a wide margin—4.2x in FP32, 4.2x in texture rate, and 5.6x in pixel rate.

Memory bandwidth also favors the M5000M heavily. The M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s. That is a 2.5x bandwidth advantage for the M5000M, which matters for memory-bound OpenCL workloads. The M5000M also has a higher effective memory clock at 5 Gbps versus 4 Gbps for the W600.

The M5000M’s transistor budget is 5,200 million on a 398 mm² die, while the W600 uses 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process, so the M5000M’s larger die and higher transistor count directly translate to more compute resources. The transistor density is close (13.1M/mm² for the M5000M versus 12.2M/mm² for the W600), indicating similar manufacturing efficiency; the M5000M simply uses more silicon.

In terms of average benchmark score, the M5000M’s 6,481 exceeds the W600’s 6,223 by 258 points, or roughly 4.1%. This is a much smaller gap than the OpenCL result, because the M5000M’s average includes several weak DirectX scores (35 in DX10, 54 in DX11, 29 in DX12, 119 in DX9). These legacy API results are far below the W600’s OpenCL score, illustrating that the M5000M’s DirectX performance is inconsistent with its compute performance.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M scores 22,920 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the AMD FirePro W600’s 6,223, a 268.3% advantage for the M5000M.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The M5000M has an average benchmark score of 6,481, while the W600 averages 6,223. The M5000M is 258 points (about 4.1%) higher on average.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth and 5 Gbps effective memory speed. The W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth and 4 Gbps effective speed.

Q: Which card supports more modern APIs?

A: The M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M5000M has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: How do their form factors differ?

A: The M5000M is an MXM Module with no power connectors and no display outputs (portable device dependent). The W600 is a single-slot card with six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, measuring 168 mm by 111 mm by 20 mm, and requires no power connectors with a 250 W suggested PSU.

Q: What are their TDPs?

A: The M5000M has a 100 W TDP, while the W600 has a 75 W TDP. The W600 is rated 25 W lower.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families and different generations. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is built on the GM204 chip using Maxwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Quadro Maxwell-M (Mx000M) generation. The AMD FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation. Both are fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the M5000M is a much larger and more complex chip.

The M5000M packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1M/mm². The W600 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of 12.2M/mm². The M5000M therefore uses 3.47x more transistors and 3.24x more die area. Both are 28 nm parts, so the difference is purely a matter of chip scale, not process efficiency.

Compute resources differ fundamentally. The M5000M has 1,536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The W600 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This gives the M5000M exactly 3x the shading units and TMUs, and 4x the ROPs. The M5000M’s FP32 throughput is 3.229 TFLOPS versus 768.0 GFLOPS for the W600, a 4.2x difference. Pixel rate is 67.26 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s (5.6x), and texture rate is 100.9 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s (4.2x).

Clock behavior also differs. The M5000M has explicit base (962 MHz) and boost (1,051 MHz) clocks. The W600 has no base or boost clock listed in the data. The M5000M’s memory runs at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the W600’s memory runs at 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The M5000M uses 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The W600 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for 64.00 GB/s. The M5000M has 4x the memory capacity and 2.5x the bandwidth.

Power and form factor differ substantially. The M5000M is an MXM Module with a 100 W TDP, no power connectors, and display outputs that are portable device dependent. The W600 is a single-slot card with a 75 W TDP, no power connectors, a 250 W suggested PSU, and six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The W600 has physical dimensions of 168 mm by 111 mm by 20 mm; the M5000M’s dimensions are not listed.

API support shows generational differences. The M5000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M5000M’s DirectX feature level is 12_1 versus 11_1 for the W600, and its Vulkan version is newer (1.4 vs 1.2.170).

Release timing reflects the generational gap. The M5000M was released on 2015-08-17, while the W600 came out on 2012-06-12—a gap of over three years. The M5000M’s predecessor is Quadro Kepler-M and its successor is Quadro Pascal-M. The W600’s predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris. Both are end-of-life products.

The M5000M’s transistor density advantage (13.1M/mm² vs 12.2M/mm²) is small, indicating both chips are near the practical limits of 28 nm TSMC production. The performance gap comes overwhelmingly from the M5000M’s larger die and more aggressive resource allocation, not from any density advantage.