AMD FirePro W7000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5200 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W7000 and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 are both end-of-life professional workstation graphics cards, yet their benchmark results reveal a fascinating split in capabilities. The data shows a near-total stalemate in overall average score, with the FirePro W7000 achieving 19,905 and the Quadro K5200 trailing at 19,602 — a razor-thin 1.5% gap. However, this surface-level equality masks significant differences in individual workloads, architectural design, and memory resources that dictate which card excels in specific scenarios.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two cards split their head-to-head benchmark wins exactly one apiece, yet the margins tell a compelling story. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 emerges victorious with a score of 19,024 against the FirePro W7000’s 17,808, representing a 6.4% advantage for NVIDIA. This is a substantial lead in a compute-oriented API, suggesting that the Quadro’s raw shading power translates into tangible gains for OpenCL acceleration tasks. The FirePro W7000, by contrast, fights back decisively in the Geekbench Vulkan test, scoring 22,001 against the Quadro’s 20,180 — a 9% swing in AMD’s favor. This is a notable reversal, indicating that the FirePro’s architecture handles Vulkan’s lower-level abstraction with considerably more efficiency.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the Quadro K5200’s average score of 19,602 places it just 0.2% behind the AMD FirePro D300 (19,637) and 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT (19,765). The FirePro W7000, with its average of 19,905, sits 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Tesla K40m (19,885) and 0.7% ahead of the Radeon RX 6650 XT. The data suggests both cards occupy a similar performance tier, yet the Vulkan result for AMD is the outlier that tips the overall average in its favor. The FirePro W7000’s 9% Vulkan victory is more than enough to offset the Quadro’s 6.4% OpenCL win, resulting in the W7000 holding a 1.5% edge in aggregate.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two cards is stark, beginning with the physical silicon. The AMD FirePro W7000 is built on the Pitcairn chip using GCN 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 employs the GK110B chip under the Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but the similarities end there. The Quadro’s GK110B packs 7,080 million transistors into a 561 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The FirePro’s Pitcairn is far smaller, at 212 mm² and 2,800 million transistors, but achieves a higher density of 13.2M per mm². This means AMD squeezed more transistors per square millimeter, while NVIDIA opted for a massive, complex die.

The shading resources diverge dramatically. The Quadro K5200 fields 2,304 shading units, 192 texture mapping units, and 48 ROPs, compared to the FirePro W7000’s 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This gives NVIDIA a 1.8x advantage in shaders and a 2.4x advantage in texture units, which explains its OpenCL dominance. Yet the Quadro’s clock speeds are surprisingly modest: a base of 667 MHz and boost of 771 MHz. The FirePro W7000’s clocks are not listed in the data, but its lower core count still achieves 2.432 TFLOPS FP32 performance, while the Quadro reaches 3.553 TFLOPS. The Quadro also leads in pixel rate (37.01 GPixel/s vs 30.40 GPixel/s) and texture rate (148.0 GTexel/s vs 76.00 GTexel/s).

Memory is another critical divider. The Quadro K5200 ships with 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 192.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W7000 offers 4 GB on the same bus width but with lower 153.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro’s memory clocks at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), versus the FirePro’s 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective). The Quadro’s double memory capacity and 25% higher bandwidth suggest it is better suited for large datasets that exceed the FirePro’s 4 GB frame buffer.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, though nuanced, conclusion. For applications that rely heavily on OpenCL compute, the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is the superior choice — its 6.4% lead in that benchmark is backed by 1.8x more shading units and 2.4x more texture units. For workloads that leverage Vulkan, the AMD FirePro W7000 holds a decisive 9% advantage, indicating better driver optimization or architectural efficiency for that API. The Quadro’s 8 GB memory capacity is also a practical win for professionals handling large models or textures, while the FirePro’s 4 GB may become a bottleneck.

The overall average score (19,905 vs 19,602) favors AMD by 1.5%, but this margin is within the noise of the nearest rivals — the FirePro D300 sits just 0.2% behind the Quadro, and the Tesla K40m is 0.1% behind the FirePro. Neither card is a runaway winner. The Quadro K5200’s dual-slot design and 267 mm length make it a larger physical presence, whereas the FirePro W7000 is single-slot at 242 mm. Both share identical 150 W TDP, 450 W suggested PSU, and a single 6-pin power connector, so power delivery is not a differentiator. The Quadro’s 64th percentile versus the FirePro’s 65th percentile confirms they are peers in the broader GPU landscape.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000 leads with an average benchmark score of 19,905, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K5200’s 19,602 — a 1.5% difference.

Q: How do the cards perform in OpenCL, and which one wins?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 scores 19,024 versus the AMD FirePro W7000’s 17,808, giving NVIDIA a 6.4% advantage.

Q: What is the result of the Vulkan benchmark comparison?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 22,001, beating the NVIDIA Quadro K5200’s 20,180 by 9%.

Q: How much memory does each card have, and what is the bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 with 153.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 has 8 GB of GDDR5 with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes for these GPUs?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000 uses 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, while the NVIDIA Quadro K5200 uses 7,080 million transistors on a 561 mm² die.

Q: Do both cards have the same power requirements?

A: Yes, both the AMD FirePro W7000 and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 have a 150 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 450 W, each requiring a single 6-pin power connector.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W7000 is the winner for Vulkan-based rendering pipelines, where its 9% performance lead can translate into faster frame times in modern graphics APIs. Its single-slot form factor (242 mm length) also makes it easier to fit into dense multi-GPU configurations or space-constrained chassis. The FirePro’s higher transistor density (13.2M vs 12.6M per mm²) suggests a more efficient use of silicon, which may contribute to its Vulkan strength. Its 4 GB memory is adequate for mid-sized scenes, and the four DisplayPort 1.2 outputs provide flexible multi-monitor setups.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5200 is the clear choice for OpenCL compute workloads, where its 6.4% edge and massive 2,304 shading units pay dividends. The 8 GB memory capacity is a decisive factor for professionals working with high-resolution textures, large CAD assemblies, or GPU-accelerated simulations that exceed 4 GB. The Quadro’s 192.3 GB/s bandwidth also reduces memory pressure in bandwidth-intensive tasks. Its dual-slot design (267 mm length) indicates a more robust cooling solution, which may be beneficial for sustained loads. The two DVI and two DisplayPort outputs offer legacy display connectivity that some professional environments still require.

Specification Differences

The AMD FirePro W7000 and NVIDIA Quadro K5200 differ across nearly every core specification. The FirePro uses the Pitcairn chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the Quadro uses GK110B with Kepler architecture. The Quadro’s die is 561 mm² versus the FirePro’s 212 mm², with transistor counts of 7,080 million and 2,800 million, respectively. The Quadro has 2,304 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 48 ROPs; the FirePro has 1,280 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Clock speeds differ, with the Quadro listing a 667 MHz base and 771 MHz boost, while the FirePro’s core clocks are not specified. Memory capacity is 8 GB for the Quadro versus 4 GB for the FirePro, with bandwidth at 192.3 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s. The Quadro produces 3.553 TFLOPS FP32, 37.01 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 148.0 GTexel/s texture rate, while the FirePro produces 2.432 TFLOPS, 30.40 GPixel/s, and 76.00 GTexel/s. The Quadro is dual-slot and 267 mm long; the FirePro is single-slot and 242 mm long. Display outputs differ: the FirePro offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro offers 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The Quadro supports Vulkan 1.2.175, slightly newer than the FirePro’s 1.2.170. Release dates differ, with the FirePro launching on 2012-06-12 and the Quadro on 2014-07-21. The FirePro has a listed launch MSRP of 899 USD, while the Quadro’s launch MSRP is not provided.