AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K5000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 and AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 represent two distinct generations of professional workstation graphics, and the benchmark data shows a decisive performance shift toward the newer AMD part. Across the three shared Geekbench tests, the Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins every single comparison, often by substantial margins. The most dramatic difference appears in the Geekbench Metal test, where the AMD card scores 29,003 against the Quadro K5000’s 6,324, a delta of -78.2% for the NVIDIA product. This means the AMD card delivers roughly 4.6 times the performance in that specific workload, a gap that dwarfs the differences seen in the other two tests. The OpenCL results tell a similar story: the Radeon Pro WX 5100 posts 24,217 versus 11,418 for the Quadro K5000, a -52.9% delta, indicating the AMD part is more than twice as fast. In the Vulkan test, the AMD card scores 26,909 against 11,169, a -58.5% delta, again showing a clear doubling of performance. These results leave the Quadro K5000 with zero wins in the head-to-head comparison, marking it as thoroughly outperformed by the newer architecture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench Metal test provides the starkest illustration of the generational gap between these two workstation cards. The Radeon Pro WX 5100’s score of 29,003 is not just a marginal improvement over the Quadro K5000’s 6,324; it is a 78.2% advantage, meaning the AMD card delivers over four times the raw Metal performance. This is a particularly notable result given that Metal is a low-level graphics API that tends to favor architectures with higher compute throughput, and the data suggests the GCN 4.0 design is vastly more efficient in this regard. The absolute score difference of 22,679 points is the largest of any test in this comparison, underscoring the scale of the performance gulf.

Moving to OpenCL, the pattern holds but with a slightly smaller relative gap. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 achieves 24,217, while the Quadro K5000 manages 11,418, yielding a -52.9% delta for the NVIDIA card. In practical terms, this means the AMD card completes OpenCL workloads in roughly half the time, a critical factor for professionals relying on GPU-accelerated compute in applications like rendering and simulation. The Quadro K5000’s score, while lower, is still respectable in absolute terms, but it is clearly outclassed by the newer part’s raw compute capability.

The Vulkan benchmark rounds out the trio of tests, with the Radeon Pro WX 5100 again taking a commanding lead. Its score of 26,909 is 58.5% higher than the Quadro K5000’s 11,169, confirming that the AMD card’s advantage is consistent across different API environments. Vulkan is known for its efficiency on modern hardware, and the data shows the GCN 4.0 architecture leverages this far better than the older Kepler design. The Quadro K5000’s score of 11,169 is actually its second-highest result of the three tests, suggesting it performs relatively better in Vulkan than in Metal, but it still cannot close the gap against the WX 5100.

When looking at the overall average benchmark scores, the picture becomes more nuanced. The Quadro K5000 has an average benchmark score of 9,637, while the Radeon Pro WX 5100’s average is 8,863, meaning the NVIDIA card actually holds a slight edge in this aggregate metric. This is counterintuitive given the head-to-head results, but it can be explained by the fact that the WX 5100’s average is dragged down by additional tests not shared with the K5000, including several Passmark scores that are quite low. For instance, the WX 5100 scores only 29 in Passmark DirectX 10 and 36 in DirectX 11, which are far below its Geekbench results. This discrepancy highlights the importance of context when interpreting benchmark data — the head-to-head tests show a clear winner, but the broader dataset reveals that the AMD card’s performance is highly workload-dependent.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins the most in direct comparison tests?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 wins all three head-to-head benchmark tests against the NVIDIA Quadro K5000. It takes Geekbench Metal with 29,003 to 6,324, OpenCL with 24,217 to 11,418, and Vulkan with 26,909 to 11,169.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between the two cards?

A: The largest gap is in the Geekbench Metal test, where the Radeon Pro WX 5100 leads by 78.2%. This translates to the AMD card delivering more than four times the score of the Quadro K5000 in that specific workload.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 has a higher average benchmark score of 9,637, compared to 8,863 for the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100. This aggregate metric favors the NVIDIA card even though it loses every individual head-to-head test.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro WX 5100 have a higher score in every single benchmark?

A: No. The WX 5100 wins the three shared Geekbench tests, but it also has several Passmark results that are very low, such as 29 in DirectX 10 and 26 in DirectX 12. These lower scores are part of its overall average and explain why its average is below that of the K5000.

Q: What do the deltaPct values indicate in the head-to-head results?

A: The deltaPct values show the percentage difference relative to the AMD card. For the Quadro K5000, the deltas are -78.2% in Metal, -52.9% in OpenCL, and -58.5% in Vulkan, all indicating the NVIDIA card is behind by those margins.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile rank among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 sits at the 46th percentile, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is at the 44th percentile. Despite the AMD card’s dominant head-to-head wins, it ranks slightly lower in the overall distribution of GPU performance.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 is the clear choice for any workload that leverages modern compute APIs. The data shows it excels in Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan, making it the superior option for GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, and any professional application that relies on these interfaces. The doubling of performance in OpenCL and Vulkan, combined with the quadrupling in Metal, suggests that the GCN 4.0 architecture is far better suited to current software stacks. For professionals using applications that have adopted these APIs, the WX 5100 offers a substantial productivity boost over the older Quadro K5000.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5000, despite losing all head-to-head tests, still holds a niche based on its average benchmark score. With an average of 9,637 versus 8,863, the K5000 performs better in the aggregate across a wider range of tests, including those not shared with the WX 5100. This suggests that in certain legacy or less compute-intensive workloads, the Kepler architecture may still hold its own. The K5000’s higher percentile rank of 46 versus 44 also indicates that it sits slightly higher in the overall performance distribution. Users running older applications that are optimized for NVIDIA’s architecture, or those that rely on OpenGL (which both cards support at version 4.6), might find the K5000 to be a more consistent performer across the board.

Power and physical requirements also differentiate the two cards in terms of where they fit. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 has a TDP of 75 W and is a single-slot design with no power connectors, making it an ideal candidate for compact workstations or systems with limited power delivery. The Quadro K5000, with a TDP of 122 W, dual-slot design, and a single 6-pin power connector, requires more substantial cooling and power infrastructure. For a system builder prioritizing energy efficiency or space-constrained builds, the WX 5100 is the clear winner. The WX 5100 also supports more modern display outputs with 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, compared to the K5000’s 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, making it more suitable for multi-monitor setups with higher resolution displays.

Specification Differences

The memory configuration is a significant differentiator between the two cards. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 comes with 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the 4 GB found on the NVIDIA Quadro K5000. This larger frame buffer is critical for modern workloads with high-resolution textures and large datasets. However, the memory bandwidth tells a slightly different story: the K5000 has a bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s, while the WX 5100 has 160.0 GB/s, a difference that favors the NVIDIA card. The memory clock also differs, with the K5000 running at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective) versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the WX 5100. Both cards use a 256-bit memory bus, but the K5000’s higher clock speed gives it a bandwidth advantage.

The compute specifications show a clear shift toward the AMD card. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 has 1,792 shading units, compared to 1,536 for the Quadro K5000, giving it a 256-unit advantage. However, the texture mapping units (TMUs) are higher on the NVIDIA card at 128 versus 112, while both have 32 ROPs. This translates to different rate limits: the WX 5100 achieves a pixel rate of 34.75 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 121.6 GTexel/s, while the K5000 manages 22.59 GPixel/s and 90.37 GTexel/s, respectively. The FP32 performance is drastically different, with the WX 5100 reaching 3.892 TFLOPS against the K5000’s 2.169 TFLOPS, a 79% advantage for AMD. The WX 5100 also supports FP16 at 3.892 TFLOPS (1:1), while the K5000 has no FP16 capability listed.

Power and physical specs differ substantially. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Quadro K5000 consumes 122 W and requires a 300 W PSU. The WX 5100 is a single-slot card with no power connectors, measuring 173 mm in length and 112 mm in height. The K5000 is a dual-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector, measuring 267 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The bus interface also differs, with the WX 5100 using PCIe 3.0 x16 and the K5000 using the older PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs are another divergence: the WX 5100 offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the K5000 provides 2x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures separated by several generations of process technology. The NVIDIA Quadro K5000 uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip contains 3,540 million transistors on a die size of 294 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M / mm². In contrast, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses the GCN 4.0 architecture with the Ellesmere chip, built on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. This newer process allows for 5,700 million transistors on a smaller die size of 232 mm², achieving a much higher transistor density of 24.6M / mm². The shift from 28 nm to 14 nm is a key factor in the WX 5100’s superior performance-per-watt, as evidenced by its lower TDP of 75 W despite significantly higher compute throughput.

The architectural generation differences are also reflected in the API support. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro K5000 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. This means the AMD card is fully compliant with modern DirectX 12 feature levels, whereas the NVIDIA card is limited to the older 11_0 feature set. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, but the WX 5100’s more recent Vulkan version suggests better long-term driver support and compatibility with newer applications. The generation naming also highlights the gap: the K5000 is from the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, released in 2012, while the WX 5100 is from the Radeon Pro Polaris (WX x100) generation, released in 2016. The four-year gap in release dates is evident in the architectural improvements.

The memory and compute capabilities are directly tied to these architectural differences. The GCN 4.0 architecture in the WX 5100 is designed for higher throughput with 1,792 shading units and a 1:1 FP16 ratio, making it suitable for workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic. The Kepler architecture in the K5000, while capable in its time, lacks this modern feature set. The transistor density difference — 24.6M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm² — is a clear indicator of the manufacturing advancements that enable the AMD card to pack more compute power into a smaller, more power-efficient package. The production status for both cards is end-of-life, but the architectural gap means the WX 5100 is better positioned to handle contemporary professional workloads.