AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs NVIDIA Quadro M5000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M has an average benchmark score of 6481, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 6330. The M5000M sits 0.1% above the AMD Radeon Vega 10 Mobile, whereas the WX 4100 is 0.8% above the NVIDIA Quadro K620.

Q: How large is the lead in DirectX 11 performance?

A: In the Passmark DirectX 11 test, the Quadro M5000M scores 54 versus the WX 4100's 24, a delta of 125%. This is the largest margin across all head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark outright?

A: Yes. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins the Passmark G2D test with 646 points against the M5000M's 476, a 26.3% advantage. The data shows this is the only test where AMD comes out ahead.

Q: What is the difference in FP32 compute throughput?

A: The Quadro M5000M delivers 3.229 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the WX 4100 provides 2.460 TFLOPS. The NVIDIA card also lacks FP16 support, whereas the AMD card offers FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth specifications compare?

A: The M5000M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 96.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA card's bandwidth is roughly 67% higher.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two cards?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The M5000M was released in August 2015, and the WX 4100 followed in November 2016.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits the workload landscape along predictable lines. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M dominates compute and 3D rendering tasks. In the Passmark G3D test, it scores 7062 against the WX 4100's 3699, a 90.9% advantage. The GPU compute test shows a similar story: 2756 versus 1475, an 86.8% lead. For applications that stress raw geometric throughput and shading, the M5000M's 1536 shading units and 64 ROPs give it a clear edge.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins in 2D desktop workloads. Its Passmark G2D score of 646 exceeds the M5000M's 476 by 26.3%. This suggests the WX 4100 handles window composition, 2D CAD viewport redraws, and general desktop acceleration more responsively. The AMD card also carries a lower TDP of 50 W versus 100 W, making it the more power-conscious choice for workstations where thermal envelope matters.

For API-specific legacy support, the M5000M sweeps all DirectX tests. It leads by 118.8% in DirectX 10, 125% in DirectX 11, 31.8% in DirectX 12, and 112.5% in DirectX 9. The NVIDIA card's Vulkan score of 24875 versus 18703 gives it a 33% margin in that API as well. The only modern API where AMD shows partial strength is Metal (the WX 4100 scores 21018 in Geekbench Metal, a test the M5000M does not have), but that is platform-specific and not directly comparable.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The Quadro M5000M uses the GM204 chip on NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die measures 398 mm² and contains 5,200 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 13.1 million per mm². The WX 4100 uses the Baffin chip on AMD's GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its die is much smaller at 123 mm², holding 3,000 million transistors for a density of 24.4 million per mm².

The transistor density difference reflects the process node advantage. AMD packs nearly twice as many transistors per square millimeter, but the NVIDIA chip still fields more total transistors and a substantially larger die. The M5000M's Maxwell architecture emphasizes throughput per clock with 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The WX 4100's GCN design uses 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and just 16 ROPs. That ROP count disparity explains much of the pixel rate gap: the M5000M achieves 67.26 GPixel/s versus 19.22 GPixel/s for the AMD card.

Memory architecture also diverges. The M5000M uses a 256-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR5; the WX 4100 uses a 128-bit bus with 4 GB. Both use GDDR5, but the NVIDIA card's wider bus gives it 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth against 96.00 GB/s. Clock speeds tell a different story: the WX 4100 runs higher at 1125 MHz base and 1201 MHz boost, while the M5000M sits at 962 MHz base and 1051 MHz boost. The AMD card's memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the NVIDIA card, but the narrower bus negates that advantage. API support differs slightly: the M5000M supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 4100 supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3. Both offer OpenGL 4.6.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M5000M | AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | GM204 | Baffin |

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 4.0 |

| Process node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 3,000 million |

| Die size | 398 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Base clock | 962 MHz | 1125 MHz |

| Boost clock | 1051 MHz | 1201 MHz |

| Memory size | 8 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory bus | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 96.00 GB/s |

| Shading units | 1536 | 1024 |

| TMUs | 96 | 64 |

| ROPs | 64 | 16 |

| Pixel rate | 67.26 GPixel/s | 19.22 GPixel/s |

| Texture rate | 100.9 GTexel/s | 76.86 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 3.229 TFLOPS | 2.460 TFLOPS |

| FP16 | — | 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 100 W | 50 W |

| Slot width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Bus interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| Dimensions | — | 168 mm × 69 mm |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.3 |

| Release date | 2015-08-17 | 2016-11-09 |

| Launch MSRP | — | 399 USD |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test opens the comparison with the M5000M scoring 22920 against the WX 4100's 17642, a 29.9% lead. Geekbench Vulkan shows a wider gap: 24875 versus 18703, a 33% advantage. These compute-centric workloads favor the NVIDIA card's higher shading unit count and wider memory bus.

Passmark results amplify the NVIDIA advantage. The DirectX 9 test shows 119 versus 56, a 112.5% margin. DirectX 10 shows 35 versus 16, a 118.8% gap. DirectX 11 shows 54 versus 24, a 125% lead. Even DirectX 12, where both cards support similar feature levels, shows a 31.8% edge for the M5000M (29 versus 22). The G3D score of 7062 versus 3699 translates to a 90.9% advantage, and GPU compute of 2756 versus 1475 gives an 86.8% margin.

The single AMD win comes in Passmark G2D, where the WX 4100 scores 646 against 476 for the M5000M. That 26.3% swing is notable because it runs contrary to the overall pattern. The M5000M wins eight of nine head-to-head benchmarks; the WX 4100 wins one. The average scores reflect this: 6481 versus 6330, a 2.4% overall edge for the NVIDIA card. Both GPUs sit at the 37th percentile among all GPUs in the database, meaning they occupy a similar tier despite the benchmark disparities.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear segmentation. The NVIDIA Quadro M5000M is the stronger compute and 3D rendering card. It wins every DirectX test, both Geekbench compute tests, and the G3D and GPU compute benchmarks by substantial margins. Its 8 GB memory capacity and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth make it the better choice for large textures, deep framebuffers, and memory-intensive workloads. Users running OpenCL or Vulkan applications should expect roughly 30% better throughput from the M5000M.

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has a narrower but real niche. Its G2D win suggests better 2D desktop acceleration. Its 50 W TDP makes it suitable for compact, low-power workstations. The 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs give it a fixed, multi-monitor capability that the M5000M lacks—the NVIDIA card's outputs are listed as portable-device dependent. The WX 4100 also offers FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio, which the M5000M does not provide at all.

Choose the Quadro M5000M for GPU compute, 3D rendering, or any workload built around DirectX or Vulkan. Choose the Radeon Pro WX 4100 for 2D-focused workstations, power-constrained builds, or setups requiring its specific display output configuration. The benchmark data does not support choosing the AMD card for raw performance—it wins one test—but its architectural advantages in power efficiency and form factor are documented in the specifications.