AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive outcome in the one directly comparable workload: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7,289. This results in a delta of -58.7% from the perspective of the NVIDIA card, meaning the AMD part is roughly 2.4 times faster in this compute test. The margin is substantial, and it is the only head-to-head measurement available in the database, giving the AMD card a clean 1-0 win tally.

When placed against the broader field, the Quadro 5000's OpenCL score of 7,289 places it just above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 750, which averages 7,222 (a 0.9% advantage for the Quadro). It also edges out the AMD Radeon Vega 8 Mobile (7,203) by 1.2% and the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P580 (7,170) by 1.7%. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 sits at the 40th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100, by contrast, achieves a 17,642 OpenCL score that is far above its nearest listed rivals in its own average benchmark profile. Its average score across all tests is 6,330, which sits at the 37th percentile, but that average is dragged down by low DirectX and 2D scores. Its OpenCL result is the standout, and the gap to the Quadro 5000 is the largest single-test difference recorded between the two.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from very different design eras and philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip, built on the Fermi architecture, and is manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. The die is large at 529 mm², housing 3,100 million transistors, which yields a transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses the Baffin chip, built on GCN 4.0, and is manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its die is far smaller at 123 mm², yet it contains 3,000 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 24.4 million per mm². This density difference reflects the newer manufacturing node and is a key reason the AMD card can deliver higher raw compute throughput in a much smaller package.

The compute resource layout differs sharply. The Quadro 5000 has 352 shading units, 44 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 has 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. Despite having fewer ROPs, the AMD card achieves a higher pixel rate of 19.22 GPixel/s compared to the Quadro's 11.29 GPixel/s. The texture rate also favors AMD heavily: 76.86 GTexel/s versus 22.57 GTexel/s. In floating point performance, the AMD card delivers 2.460 TFLOPS of FP32, compared to the Quadro's 722.3 GFLOPS. The AMD card also supports FP16 at the same rate (2.460 TFLOPS, 1:1), while the Quadro has no listed FP16 capability.

Memory architecture is another point of divergence. The Quadro 5000 uses 2.5 GB of GDDR5 on a 320-bit bus, yielding 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, which gives 96.00 GB/s. The Quadro has a wider bus and higher bandwidth, but the AMD card has more capacity. Clock speeds favor AMD as well: the Radeon Pro WX 4100 has a base clock of 1125 MHz and a boost clock of 1201 MHz, while the Quadro 5000 has no base or boost clock listed. Its memory runs at 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective), while the AMD card's memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

The feature sets also reflect their generations. The Quadro 5000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and has no listed Vulkan support. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The AMD card supports PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The AMD card is a single-slot design with no power connectors and a 50 W TDP, while the Quadro is dual-slot, requires a 6-pin connector, and has a 152 W TDP. The physical dimensions differ: the Quadro is 248 mm long and 111 mm tall, while the Radeon Pro WX 4100 is 168 mm long and 69 mm tall.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the stronger compute performer. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 17,642 is nearly 2.4 times higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 5000's 7,289. The AMD card also offers more memory (4 GB versus 2.5 GB), a newer architecture (GCN 4.0 versus Fermi), higher FP32 throughput (2.460 TFLOPS versus 722.3 GFLOPS), and faster texture and pixel rates. It supports Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro does not. The AMD card is also far more efficient on paper, with a 50 W TDP versus 152 W, and it requires no external power connector.

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 does hold advantages in memory bandwidth (120.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s) and bus width (320-bit versus 128-bit). Its ROP count is higher at 40 versus 16. These factors might benefit certain rasterization-heavy tasks, but the database does not include direct head-to-head rasterization tests. In the only measured comparison, AMD wins decisively.

For a user prioritizing compute workloads, OpenCL performance, and modern API support, the data clearly points to the Radeon Pro WX 4100. For a user who might benefit from higher memory bandwidth and a wider memory bus, the Quadro 5000 retains a theoretical edge, but the lack of benchmark evidence in that area makes it an unproven advantage.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification field. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 uses the GF100 chip and Fermi architecture, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses the Baffin chip and GCN 4.0. The process nodes are 40 nm versus 14 nm. The Quadro has 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, while the AMD card has 3,000 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Transistor density is 5.9M per mm² versus 24.4M per mm².

The Quadro has no listed base or boost clock, while the AMD card has a base of 1125 MHz and a boost of 1201 MHz. Memory clocks differ: 750 MHz (3 Gbps effective) versus 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The Quadro has 2.5 GB of memory on a 320-bit bus with 120.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD card has 4 GB on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s.

The compute units differ: 352 shading units, 44 TMUs, and 40 ROPs for the Quadro, versus 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs for the AMD card. Pixel rates are 11.29 GPixel/s versus 19.22 GPixel/s. Texture rates are 22.57 GTexel/s versus 76.86 GTexel/s. FP32 is 722.3 GFLOPS versus 2.460 TFLOPS. The AMD card lists FP16 at 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1), while the Quadro has none.

TDP is 152 W versus 50 W. Slot width is dual-slot versus single-slot. Power connectors are 1x 6-pin versus none. Suggested PSU is 450 W versus 250 W. Bus interface is PCIe 2.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8. Display outputs are 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a. DirectX support is 12 (11_0) versus 12 (12_0). Vulkan is absent versus 1.3. Dimensions are 248 mm by 111 mm versus 168 mm by 69 mm. Release dates are February 2011 versus November 2016.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 17,642, while the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 scores 7,289. The AMD card is 58.7% ahead in this test.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 5000 have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The Quadro 5000 has 120.0 GB/s of bandwidth on a 320-bit bus, while the Radeon Pro WX 4100 has 96.00 GB/s on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: Only the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 lists Vulkan support, at version 1.3. The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has no listed Vulkan support.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has a TDP of 152 W, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has a TDP of 50 W. The AMD card also requires no power connector, while the Quadro needs a 6-pin connector.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 has 2.5 GB of GDDR5, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each chip?

A: The NVIDIA GF100 chip has 3,100 million transistors, and the AMD Baffin chip has 3,000 million transistors.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins in the only direct head-to-head benchmark recorded: Geekbench OpenCL. It also wins in raw compute throughput, with 2.460 TFLOPS of FP32 compared to 722.3 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 76.86 GTexel/s is more than triple the Quadro's 22.57 GTexel/s, and its pixel rate of 19.22 GPixel/s is nearly double the Quadro's 11.29 GPixel/s. The AMD card has more memory capacity (4 GB versus 2.5 GB) and supports modern APIs like Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_0). It is also a much more efficient design, with a 50 W TDP, single-slot cooler, and no power connector, making it suitable for compact or low-power systems.

The NVIDIA Quadro 5000 wins in memory bandwidth, offering 120.0 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, and has a wider 320-bit bus compared to the 128-bit bus on the AMD card. It also has more ROPs (40 versus 16), which could theoretically benefit certain fill-rate-limited workloads, though no direct benchmark in the database confirms this. Its PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, while older, provides a full 16 lanes versus the AMD card's 8 lanes on PCIe 3.0. For scenarios where memory bandwidth is the limiting factor, the Quadro's wider bus is the only clear specification advantage that might translate to better performance. However, the absence of head-to-head tests in those areas leaves that conclusion as an inference from the spec sheet rather than a measured result.