FirePro W9100 vs Quadro M5000

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro M5000 and FirePro W9100, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro M5000
2015
8 GB 256-bit, 150 Watt
24.29
+23.6%

M5000 outperforms W9100 by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking229280
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.01no data
Power efficiency11.294.98
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameGM204Hawaii
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date29 June 2015 (9 years ago)26 March 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,856.99 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores20482816
Core clock speed861 MHz930 MHz
Boost clock speed1038 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,200 million6,200 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt750 Watt
Texture fill rate132.9163.7
Floating-point processing power4.252 TFLOPS5.238 TFLOPS
ROPs6464
TMUs128176

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus supportno dataPCIe 3.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length267 mm275 mm
Width2" (5.1 cm)2-slot
Form factorno datafull height / full length
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin
SLI options+-

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type256 BitGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount8 GB16 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit512 Bit
Memory clock speed1653 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidthUp to 211 GB/s320 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 4x DisplayPort6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x S-Video
Number of simultaneous displays4no data
Multi-display synchronizationQuadro Syncno data
StereoOutput3D-+
Dual-link DVI support-+
HD сomponent video output-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

ECC (Error Correcting Code)+no data
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
High-Performance Video I/O6+no data
nView Desktop Management+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX1212 (12_0)
Shader Model6.46.3
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA5.2-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Quadro M5000 24.29
+23.6%
FirePro W9100 19.65

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Quadro M5000 9369
+23.6%
FirePro W9100 7580

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro M5000 29514
FirePro W9100 43046
+45.8%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.29 19.65
Recency 29 June 2015 26 March 2014
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 16 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 750 Watt

Quadro M5000 has a 23.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 400% lower power consumption.

FirePro W9100, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The Quadro M5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W9100 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA Quadro M5000
Quadro M5000
AMD FirePro W9100
FirePro W9100

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 77 votes

Rate Quadro M5000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 17 votes

Rate FirePro W9100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.