AMD FirePro W7100 vs NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 is the superior workstation GPU. It wins both recorded benchmark comparisons by a wide margin. In OpenCL compute workloads, the Quadro RTX 5000 scores 78,999 against the FirePro W7100's 24,182, a 69.4% deficit for the AMD card. In Vulkan, the gap is even wider: 92,309 versus 27,529, putting the FirePro 70.2% behind. Any professional selecting between these two should choose the NVIDIA card if performance is the primary criterion.

The AMD FirePro W7100 does have one statistical advantage: its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 25,856, which places it in the 71st percentile of all GPUs. The Quadro RTX 5000's average is 21,629, only the 67th percentile. This discrepancy stems from the benchmark suite composition. The FirePro has just two recorded tests, both compute-oriented, while the Quadro has nine, including several DirectX and Passmark tests that drag down its average. The compute-focused tests, which matter most for workstation use, heavily favor the NVIDIA part.

For users constrained to the older FirePro ecosystem, the W7100 remains functional. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD FirePro D700 scores 25,842 (0.1% ahead), the AMD Radeon R9 M395X scores 25,891 (0.1% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Mobile scores 25,740 (0.5% ahead). The FirePro W7100 sits squarely in this mid-pack compute performance tier. The Quadro RTX 5000, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB in average score (21,856, a 1% difference) and the NVIDIA RTX A4000 Mobile (21,379, 1.2% behind). This indicates that the Quadro's average is pulled down by its legacy DirectX tests, not by weak compute capability.

The verdict is straightforward. The Quadro RTX 5000 dominates in raw compute throughput and modern API support. The FirePro W7100 wins only in the narrow statistical sense of having a higher overall percentile ranking, which is an artifact of fewer recorded tests. For actual workstation workloads, the NVIDIA card is the definitive choice.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is generational. The AMD FirePro W7100 uses the Tonga chip built on GCN 3.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,000 million transistors into a 366 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.7 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 uses the TU104 chip on Turing architecture, built on a 12 nm process, also at TSMC. It contains 13,600 million transistors across a 545 mm² die, achieving 25.0 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip has nearly triple the transistor count and nearly double the density.

Compute resources diverge sharply. The FirePro W7100 has 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro RTX 5000 has 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The NVIDIA card also includes 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores, dedicated hardware that the AMD card lacks entirely. These are not minor differences; they represent fundamentally different processing capabilities. The Turing architecture was designed for real-time ray tracing and AI-accelerated workloads, while GCN 3.0 predates those specialized units.

Clock behavior also differentiates the pair. The FirePro W7100 has no recorded base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The Quadro RTX 5000 has a base clock of 1620 MHz and a boost clock of 1815 MHz, with memory at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective). The NVIDIA card's memory operates at nearly three times the effective speed.

API support reveals the generational divide. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (feature level 12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (feature level 12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Vulkan version difference is substantial: 1.4 versus 1.2.170 indicates a much newer driver stack and hardware feature set. The DirectX 12 Ultimate designation includes features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading that the older 12_0 specification cannot provide.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has more video memory?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 has 16 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 448.0 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD FirePro W7100 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the performance difference in OpenCL compute?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 scores 78,999 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the FirePro W7100 scores 24,182. This puts the NVIDIA card 69.4% ahead of the AMD card in this test.

Q: Does the AMD card support ray tracing?

A: No. The FirePro W7100 has no RT cores in its specification. The Quadro RTX 5000 includes 48 RT cores specifically for ray tracing workloads.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 contains 13,600 million transistors, compared to 5,000 million in the FirePro W7100. The NVIDIA chip has 2.72 times the transistor count.

Q: Which card has a higher Vulkan score?

A: The Quadro RTX 5000 scores 92,309 in Geekbench Vulkan, versus 27,529 for the FirePro W7100. The NVIDIA card leads by 70.2%.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The FirePro W7100 was released on August 11, 2014, and the Quadro RTX 5000 on August 12, 2018.

Specification Differences

The specification tables for these two cards differ across nearly every measurable field. Process node: 28 nm for AMD versus 12 nm for NVIDIA. Transistors: 5,000 million versus 13,600 million. Die size: 366 mm² versus 545 mm². Transistor density: 13.7M per mm² versus 25.0M per mm².

Memory specifications show the NVIDIA card's advantage. The FirePro has 8 GB GDDR5 at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yielding 160.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro has 16 GB GDDR6 at 1750 MHz (14 Gbps effective), yielding 448.0 GB/s. The bus width is identical at 256 bits, but the newer memory technology and higher clock more than triple the effective bandwidth.

Compute unit counts: 1,792 shading units versus 3,072. TMUs: 112 versus 192. ROPs: 32 versus 64. The NVIDIA card has dedicated 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores; the AMD card has none. Pixel rate: 29.44 GPixel/s versus 116.2 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 103.0 GTexel/s versus 348.5 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput: 3.297 TFLOPS versus 11.15 TFLOPS. FP16: 3.297 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio) versus 22.30 TFLOPS (2:1 ratio).

Power and physical design differ. The FirePro consumes 150 W TDP with a single 6-pin power connector and a suggested 450 W PSU. The Quadro consumes 230 W TDP with 1x 6-pin plus 1x 8-pin connectors and a suggested 550 W PSU. The FirePro is single-slot; the Quadro is dual-slot. The FirePro measures 241 mm (9.5 inches) in length; the Quadro measures 267 mm (10.5 inches). Height is identical at 111 mm (4.4 inches).

Display outputs: the FirePro has 4x DisplayPort 1.2. The Quadro has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a plus 1x USB Type-C. The Quadro's launch MSRP was 2,299 USD. The FirePro has no recorded launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Two direct benchmark comparisons exist in the database, and the NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 wins both. The first is Geekbench OpenCL. The Quadro scores 78,999, the FirePro scores 24,182. The delta is 69.4% in favor of NVIDIA. This is the compute performance metric most relevant to workstation tasks like rendering, simulation, and data processing. A 69.4% lead is not marginal; it is a decisive generational advantage.

The second benchmark is Geekbench Vulkan. The Quadro scores 92,309, the FirePro scores 27,529. The delta is 70.2% in favor of NVIDIA. Notably, the Quadro's Vulkan score is higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting the Turing architecture handles Vulkan's modern API features particularly well. The FirePro's Vulkan score of 27,529 is only slightly above its OpenCL score of 24,182, indicating more consistent but lower overall performance across APIs.

The benchmark totals confirm the sweep: winsA is 0, winsB is 2. The FirePro W7100 has no recorded benchmark victory in any head-to-head comparison. The Quadro RTX 5000 wins both recorded tests by margins exceeding two-thirds. These are not close contests.

Context from nearest rivals reinforces the gap. The FirePro's nearest rival, the AMD FirePro D700, has an average score of 25,842, a 0.1% delta from the W7100's 25,856. The Quadro's nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1060 6 GB, has an average score of 21,856, a 1% delta from the Quadro's 21,629. The Quadro's average is dragged down by its Passmark DirectX scores, which range from 59 (DirectX 12) to 195 (DirectX 9). These legacy tests do not reflect the card's modern compute capability. The FirePro's average benefits from having only compute-focused tests recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro RTX 5000 wins in every measured compute scenario. In OpenCL, it leads by 69.4%. In Vulkan, it leads by 70.2%. For professionals running compute-heavy workloads, whether that is GPU-accelerated rendering, machine learning inference, or scientific simulation, the Quadro is the clear choice. Its 16 GB of GDDR6 memory at 448.0 GB/s bandwidth provides double the capacity and nearly triple the bandwidth of the FirePro's 8 GB GDDR5 at 160.0 GB/s. The 48 RT cores and 384 tensor cores enable ray tracing and AI acceleration that the FirePro cannot perform at all.

The Quadro also wins on modern API support. Its DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) feature level and Vulkan 1.4 support outpace the FirePro's DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Applications built for newer API features will run only on the NVIDIA card. The Quadro's 3,072 shading units, 192 TMUs, and 64 ROPs deliver 11.15 TFLOPS of FP32 and 22.30 TFLOPS of FP16, versus the FirePro's 3.297 TFLOPS in both precision modes. The FP16 advantage is particularly notable: the Quadro's 2:1 ratio means it processes half-precision workloads at double the rate of its FP32, a capability the FirePro lacks entirely (1:1 ratio).

The AMD FirePro W7100 wins only in the narrow statistical category of percentile ranking. Its 71st percentile versus the Quadro's 67th percentile reflects the limited benchmark sample size, not actual performance superiority. The FirePro's single victory is its lower power draw: 150 W TDP versus 230 W, and a single-slot form factor versus dual-slot. For systems with strict power or space constraints, the FirePro is the more accommodating physical design. Its 241 mm length is also shorter than the Quadro's 267 mm.

For use cases requiring legacy DisplayPort 1.2 connections, the FirePro provides four of them. The Quadro's DisplayPort 1.4a outputs are backward compatible but newer. The USB Type-C output on the Quadro is an additional connectivity option the FirePro lacks. Ultimately, the use-case split is lopsided: the Quadro RTX 5000 dominates compute, memory, API support, and feature set. The FirePro W7100 remains relevant only for users with extreme power or physical space limitations who do not require modern compute performance.