AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

The data in this comparison is decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins 9 out of 9 head-to-head benchmark comparisons against the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100, with an average benchmark score of 9665 versus 8863 for the AMD card. The P4000 also holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs (47th percentile versus 44th), placing it in a slightly stronger overall performance tier. For any workload where raw compute and graphics throughput are the priority, the Quadro P4000 is the clear choice. However, the Radeon Pro WX 5100 is not without merit: it draws significantly less power (75 W TDP versus 105 W), requires no external power connector, and is physically shorter (173 mm versus 241 mm). These factors make it a viable option for compact or power-constrained systems where the P4000's performance lead is not strictly necessary. The verdict is simple: choose the P4000 for maximum performance, or the WX 5100 for a lower-power, more compact professional card.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 has an average benchmark score of 9665, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 scores 8863. This gives the P4000 a clear lead in overall performance as measured by the aggregate of all benchmarks.

Q: How large is the performance gap in the most demanding DirectX tests?

A: The gap is substantial. In the Passmark DirectX 11 test, the P4000 scores 86 versus 36 for the WX 5100, a delta of 138.9%. In the DirectX 10 test, the P4000 scores 66 versus 29, a delta of 127.6%. The P4000 also leads in DirectX 12 (40 vs 26, a 53.8% delta) and DirectX 9 (181 vs 88, a 105.7% delta).

Q: Is the AMD card better in any benchmark category?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 winning all 9 benchmark comparisons. The closest margin is in the Passmark G2D test, where the P4000 scores 786 versus 777 for the WX 5100, a narrow 1.2% delta, but it is still a win for NVIDIA.

Q: What are the key physical differences that might affect system integration?

A: The Quadro P4000 is longer at 241 mm and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, with a suggested 300 W power supply. The Radeon Pro WX 5100 is shorter at 173 mm, requires no power connector, and has a suggested 250 W power supply. Both are single-slot cards, but the WX 5100's lower power draw and shorter length make it easier to fit in small form factor builds.

Q: How do the two cards compare in compute-oriented workloads?

A: The Quadro P4000 is significantly ahead. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 36212 versus 24217 for the WX 5100, a 49.5% delta. In Passmark GPU Compute, the P4000 scores 4913 versus 2053, a 139.3% delta. The P4000 also leads in Geekbench Vulkan (41786 vs 26909, a 55.3% delta).

Q: Do both cards support the same display outputs?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 and the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 feature 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. This means they offer identical display connectivity options for multi-monitor setups.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 uses the GP104 chip based on the Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 uses the Ellesmere chip based on the GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The process node difference is minor, but the architectural philosophies diverge significantly.

The P4000 packs 7,200 million transistors on a 314 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 22.9M per mm². The WX 5100 has fewer transistors at 5,700 million on a smaller 232 mm² die, but achieves a higher density of 24.6M per mm². The NVIDIA chip is larger and more complex, which correlates with its higher transistor count.

A critical architectural difference lies in FP16 compute capability. The P4000 delivers 82.88 GFLOPS FP16, which is a 1:64 ratio compared to its FP32 performance of 5.304 TFLOPS. This indicates that the P4000 is heavily optimized for FP32 workloads, with FP16 being a minor afterthought. In contrast, the WX 5100 delivers 3.892 TFLOPS FP16 and 3.892 TFLOPS FP32, a 1:1 ratio. This makes the AMD card significantly more capable in FP16 compute tasks relative to its FP32 performance, which could be relevant for certain scientific or AI-adjacent workloads that leverage half-precision arithmetic.

The two architectures also differ in their API support. The P4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the WX 5100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3. The higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version on the NVIDIA card indicate more modern API feature support, which can improve performance and enable newer rendering techniques in compatible applications.

Both cards feature the same number of shading units (1792) and texture mapping units (112). The key difference in the rendering pipeline is the ROP count: the P4000 has 64 ROPs, while the WX 5100 has only 32. This means the NVIDIA card can process twice as many pixels per clock cycle, contributing to its higher pixel rate.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several areas where the two cards diverge. The most significant is in memory bandwidth: the Quadro P4000 delivers 243.3 GB/s, while the Radeon Pro WX 5100 delivers 160.0 GB/s. Both have 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, but the P4000 runs its memory at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) versus 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective) on the WX 5100. This 52% bandwidth advantage is a major factor in the P4000's overall performance lead.

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The P4000 has a base clock of 1202 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz. The WX 5100 has a much lower base clock of 713 MHz and a boost clock of 1086 MHz. This clock speed disparity, combined with identical shading unit and TMU counts, explains why the P4000 achieves significantly higher texture and pixel rates. The P4000's texture rate is 165.8 GTexel/s versus 121.6 GTexel/s for the WX 5100, and its pixel rate is 94.72 GPixel/s versus 34.75 GPixel/s.

Power consumption is another key differentiator. The P4000 has a TDP of 105 W and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, with a suggested 300 W power supply. The WX 5100 has a TDP of 75 W, requires no power connector, and has a suggested 250 W power supply. This makes the AMD card more energy-efficient per watt, though the P4000 delivers more absolute performance.

Physical dimensions differ as well. The P4000 is 241 mm long and 111 mm high, while the WX 5100 is 173 mm long and 112 mm high. Both are single-slot cards. The WX 5100's shorter length makes it easier to fit into smaller chassis or systems with limited clearance.

The two cards also have different generation and release timelines. The P4000 was released on 2017-02-05, succeeding Quadro Maxwell and preceding Quadro Volta. The WX 5100 was released earlier on 2016-11-17, succeeding Radeon Pro GCN and preceding Radeon Pro Vega. Both are marked as end-of-life production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints an unambiguous picture of NVIDIA dominance. The most lopsided result is in Passmark GPU Compute, where the P4000 scores 4913 against the WX 5100's 2053, a 139.3% delta. This massive gap indicates the P4000 is more than twice as fast in general-purpose compute workloads. The Passmark DirectX 11 test shows a similar margin, with the P4000 scoring 86 versus 36, a 138.9% delta.

The Passmark G3D test, which is a general 3D graphics performance metric, shows the P4000 scoring 11466 versus 5496 for the WX 5100, a 108.6% delta. This means the NVIDIA card more than doubles the AMD card's 3D graphics performance. The DirectX 9 test also shows a wide gap, with the P4000 scoring 181 versus 88, a 105.7% delta.

In modern API tests, the P4000 maintains its lead but with smaller margins. The Geekbench Vulkan test shows the P4000 scoring 41786 versus 26909, a 55.3% delta. The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a 49.5% delta, with scores of 36212 and 24217 respectively. The Passmark DirectX 12 test shows a 53.8% delta, with scores of 40 and 26.

The closest competition comes in the 2D graphics test. The Passmark G2D test shows the P4000 scoring 786 versus 777 for the WX 5100, a narrow 1.2% delta. This suggests that for basic 2D desktop workloads, the two cards perform nearly identically. It is the only benchmark where the AMD card comes within a single percentage point of the NVIDIA card.

Across all nine head-to-head benchmarks, the P4000 wins every single one. The deltas range from 1.2% in G2D to 139.3% in GPU Compute. This consistent dominance across different API generations and workload types indicates that the P4000 is not just faster in specific scenarios but is broadly superior across the entire benchmark suite.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins in virtually every performance category measured. It is the clear choice for compute-intensive tasks, as evidenced by its 139.3% lead in Passmark GPU Compute and 49.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. For 3D rendering and graphics workloads, the P4000's 108.6% lead in Passmark G3D and its leads across all DirectX versions (9, 10, 11, and 12) make it the superior option for professional 3D applications, CAD, and DCC tools.

The P4000 also wins in modern API performance, with a 55.3% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. This suggests it is better equipped for current and future applications that leverage Vulkan. Its higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 12_0) and newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.3) further support its suitability for modern software.

The one area where the AMD Radeon Pro WX 5100 can be considered a winner is in system integration and power efficiency. With a 75 W TDP versus 105 W, no power connector requirement, and a shorter 173 mm length, the WX 5100 is easier to integrate into compact systems. It also has a lower suggested power supply requirement of 250 W versus 300 W. For users building a small form factor workstation or a system with limited power headroom, the WX 5100 offers a viable path to professional graphics without the P4000's physical and power requirements.

The WX 5100 also has a notable architectural advantage in FP16 compute. Its 1:1 FP16 to FP32 ratio (3.892 TFLOPS each) means it can handle half-precision workloads at full speed, whereas the P4000's FP16 performance is drastically reduced (82.88 GFLOPS, a 1:64 ratio). For workloads that heavily utilize FP16 arithmetic, the WX 5100 may actually outperform the P4000, despite the P4000's overall dominance in other metrics.

In summary, the P4000 is the winner for any user prioritizing raw performance across graphics, compute, and modern APIs. The WX 5100 is the winner for users prioritizing low power consumption, compact physical footprint, and FP16 compute capability. The data shows 9 wins for the P4000 and 0 wins for the WX 5100 in head-to-head benchmarks, but the AMD card's unique characteristics give it a role in specific use cases where those factors are paramount.