AMD FirePro W5170M vs NVIDIA Quadro K5100M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains one direct head-to-head comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M and the AMD FirePro W5170M, and it is a decisive victory for the NVIDIA part. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K5100M scores 11,771 points against the FirePro W5170M's 8,140 points. That is a 44.6% advantage, a substantial margin that places the two mobile workstation GPUs in different performance tiers despite both being aimed at professional laptop workloads.

The Quadro K5100M's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 10,043, which places it at the 48th percentile of all GPUs in the database. The FirePro W5170M, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 8,595, sitting at the 44th percentile. While a four-percentile-point gap may sound modest, the 1,448-point difference in average score represents a meaningful performance separation in raw compute workloads.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database helps contextualize these scores. The Quadro K5100M sits in a competitive cluster: the AMD Radeon R9 M375 averages 10,070 (just 0.3% ahead), the AMD Radeon Pro 5300M averages 10,013 (0.3% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 870M averages 9,959 (0.8% behind). The Quadro 6000 trails by 2% at 9,846. This positioning shows the K5100M is competitive with a range of mobile and desktop parts from both vendors, essentially trading places with those around it within a tight band.

The FirePro W5170M's rival cluster tells a different story. The Intel Arc A380 averages 8,558 (0.4% ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro P2200 averages 8,686 (1.1% ahead), and both the AMD Radeon HD 8870M and NVIDIA GeForce MX330 average around 8,462 and 8,458 respectively (1.6% behind). The W5170M is thus surrounded by parts that are themselves relatively modest performers, and its 44th percentile standing reflects that reality.

The single head-to-head result is the only direct comparison available, but it aligns with the broader average score gap. The 44.6% OpenCL delta is the largest single-benchmark margin recorded for either GPU against any direct competitor in this comparison, and it underscores a fundamental compute advantage for the Quadro K5100M.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M wins the only benchmark where both GPUs were tested under identical conditions: Geekbench OpenCL. Its 11,771 score versus 8,140 is the sole head-to-head data point, and the win is unambiguous. The K5100M also holds a second benchmark result, a Geekbench Metal score of 8,315, though the FirePro W5170M was not tested under Metal in the database. On the AMD side, the FirePro W5170M has one unique benchmark result, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,050, for which the Quadro has no recorded equivalent.

For compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, the data points clearly to the Quadro K5100M. The 44.6% lead suggests that tasks such as general-purpose GPU compute, rendering acceleration, and simulation workloads that rely on OpenCL will see substantially better performance on the NVIDIA part. The K5100M's higher average benchmark score of 10,043 reinforces this conclusion across the broader set of recorded tests.

The FirePro W5170M's Vulkan result of 9,050 is notable, but without a corresponding Vulkan score for the Quadro K5100M, it cannot be directly compared. The database records the K5100M as supporting Vulkan 1.2.175, while the W5170M supports Vulkan 1.2.170, so both are capable of running Vulkan workloads. However, the absence of a head-to-head Vulkan test means the data cannot establish which GPU is faster in that API.

In practical terms, the K5100M is the stronger choice for applications that scale with raw compute throughput. The W5170M, with its lower average score and smaller shading unit count, is better suited for lighter professional workloads where the GPU is not the primary bottleneck. The data does not support a scenario where the FirePro W5170M outperforms the Quadro K5100M in any shared benchmark, as the only shared test is the OpenCL result that NVIDIA wins decisively.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two mobile workstation GPUs is substantial, and it explains the performance differential recorded in the benchmarks.

The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is built on the Kepler architecture using the GK104 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0 million transistors per mm². The FirePro W5170M uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, also on TSMC's 28 nm process. Its die is far smaller at 123 mm², holding 1,500 million transistors for a density of 12.2 million transistors per mm². The two chips have nearly identical transistor densities, which is expected given the same process node, but the NVIDIA chip deploys more than twice the transistor budget across a die that is more than twice as large.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Quadro K5100M features 1,536 shading units, 128 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro W5170M has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has 2.4 times the shading units, 3.2 times the TMUs, and twice the ROPs. These ratios are reflected in the pixel and texture rates: the K5100M delivers 24.67 GPixel/s and 98.69 GTexel/s, while the W5170M manages 14.80 GPixel/s and 37.00 GTexel/s. The fill rate advantage is therefore roughly 1.7 times in pixels and 2.7 times in textures.

The FP32 compute figures confirm the pattern. The Quadro K5100M delivers 2.369 TFLOPS, while the FirePro W5170M delivers 1,184.0 GFLOPS, effectively half the compute throughput. Neither GPU has recorded FP16 performance in the database, and neither includes dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

Memory architecture also differs significantly. The K5100M uses an 8 GB GDDR5 frame buffer on a 256 bit bus, producing 115.2 GB/s of bandwidth. The W5170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, yielding 72.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA part offers four times the capacity and 60% more bandwidth. Clock speeds tell a different story: the FirePro runs at a 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost, while the Quadro is locked at 771 MHz for both base and boost. The AMD part's higher clocks partially compensate for its smaller execution resources, but not nearly enough to close the compute gap.

Both GPUs use MXM modules, but the bus interfaces differ: the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0) while the FirePro uses MXM-A (3.0). Both have no power connectors and are classified as portable-device-dependent for display outputs. The Quadro has a recorded TDP of 100 W, while the FirePro's TDP is not recorded in the database.

API support shows a minor difference in DirectX versions: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0) while the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan versions are close, with the K5100M at 1.2.175 and the W5170M at 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The process node is the same (28 nm at TSMC), but almost everything else diverges.

The Quadro K5100M uses the GK104 chip with the Kepler architecture, while the FirePro W5170M uses the Tropo chip with GCN 1.0. Transistor counts are 3,540 million versus 1,500 million, and die sizes are 294 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.0 million per mm² for NVIDIA and 12.2 million per mm² for AMD.

Clock speeds favor AMD: the FirePro runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost, while the Quadro is at 771 MHz for both. Memory clocks also favor AMD: 1,125 MHz with 4.5 Gbps effective transfer versus 900 MHz with 3.6 Gbps effective. However, the memory subsystem favors NVIDIA in capacity and bandwidth: 8 GB on a 256 bit bus with 115.2 GB/s versus 2 GB on a 128 bit bus with 72.00 GB/s.

The shading resources favor NVIDIA heavily: 1,536 shading units, 128 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 24.67 GPixel/s versus 14.80 GPixel/s, texture rate is 98.69 GTexel/s versus 37.00 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 2.369 TFLOPS versus 1,184.0 GFLOPS.

The TDP is recorded for the Quadro at 100 W, but not for the FirePro. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors. The bus interfaces differ: MXM-B (3.0) for NVIDIA, MXM-A (3.0) for AMD. Both have display outputs described as portable device dependent. DirectX support differs slightly: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (11_1). Vulkan support is 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170. OpenGL is identical at 4.6.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is significantly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scored 11,771 against the FirePro W5170M's 8,140, a 44.6% advantage.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Quadro K5100M has an average benchmark score of 10,043, while the FirePro W5170M averages 8,595. This places the K5100M at the 48th percentile of all GPUs and the W5170M at the 44th percentile.

Q: Does the FirePro W5170M have any benchmark where it wins?

A: The database records no head-to-head win for the FirePro W5170M. The only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, is won by the Quadro K5100M. The FirePro does have a unique Geekbench Vulkan score of 9,050, but the Quadro was not tested in Vulkan.

Q: What are the memory capacity differences?

A: The Quadro K5100M has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256 bit bus with 115.2 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W5170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus with 72.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the architectures differ?

A: The Quadro K5100M uses NVIDIA's Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip, containing 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The FirePro W5170M uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the Tropo chip, containing 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K5100M has 1,536 shading units, compared to 640 for the FirePro W5170M. The NVIDIA part also has 128 TMUs and 32 ROPs versus 40 TMUs and 16 ROPs for the AMD part.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K5100M is the stronger GPU in this comparison. Its 44.6% OpenCL lead, 16.8% higher average benchmark score, and higher percentile ranking make it the superior choice for compute-oriented professional workloads. The 2.4 times shading unit count, 3.2 times TMU count, and 4 times memory capacity provide structural advantages that no amount of clock speed can overcome on the AMD side.

The FirePro W5170M is not without merit. Its higher clock speeds (900 MHz base, 925 MHz boost versus 771 MHz for the Quadro) and lower transistor count suggest it may draw less power, though the database does not record its TDP. Its Vulkan score of 9,050 is respectable, and for users whose workloads are primarily Vulkan-based, it may be sufficient. However, the data cannot support a recommendation for the FirePro over the Quadro in any shared workload category.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance, OpenCL acceleration, or memory capacity, the Quadro K5100M is the clear pick. Its 8 GB frame buffer is four times larger than the FirePro's 2 GB, which matters for large datasets and texture-heavy professional applications. For those with lighter workloads or a preference for AMD's GCN architecture, the FirePro W5170M remains a functional option, but the benchmark evidence places it firmly behind the Quadro K5100M in overall capability. The verdict is straightforward: the Quadro K5100M wins on every metric where direct comparison is possible.