AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA Quadro 5000M
Comparative analysis of AMD FirePro W4300 and NVIDIA Quadro 5000M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD FirePro W4300
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- 2.3x more core clock speed: 930 MHz vs 405 MHz
- 2.8x more texture fill rate: 44.64 GTexel / s vs 16.2 GTexel / s
- 2.4x more pipelines: 768 vs 320
- 2.8x better floating-point performance: 1,428 gflops vs 518.4 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 2x lower typical power consumption: 50 Watt vs 100 Watt
- 2.3x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1792 MB
- 2.5x more memory clock speed: 6000 MHz vs 2400 MHz
- Around 37% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 2818 vs 2060
- Around 55% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 659 vs 426
- Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 6161 vs 5249
- 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 17597 vs 7205
- Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 6161 vs 5249
- 2.4x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 17597 vs 7205
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 1 December 2015 vs 27 July 2010 |
Core clock speed | 930 MHz vs 405 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 44.64 GTexel / s vs 16.2 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 768 vs 320 |
Floating-point performance | 1,428 gflops vs 518.4 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt vs 100 Watt |
Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1792 MB |
Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz vs 2400 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2818 vs 2060 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 659 vs 426 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 6161 vs 5249 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 17597 vs 7205 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 6161 vs 5249 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 17597 vs 7205 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro 5000M
- 2.2x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 23008 vs 10312
Benchmarks | |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 23008 vs 10312 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD FirePro W4300
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro 5000M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD FirePro W4300 | NVIDIA Quadro 5000M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 2818 | 2060 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 659 | 426 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 10312 | 23008 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 31.528 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 828.57 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 2.985 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 59.153 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 152.484 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 3572 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 6161 | 5249 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 17597 | 7205 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 3572 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 6161 | 5249 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 17597 | 7205 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD FirePro W4300 | NVIDIA Quadro 5000M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Fermi |
Code name | Bonaire | GF100 |
Launch date | 1 December 2015 | 27 July 2010 |
Place in performance rating | 416 | 414 |
Type | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 930 MHz | 405 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 1,428 gflops | 518.4 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 768 | 320 |
Texture fill rate | 44.64 GTexel / s | 16.2 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 100 Watt |
Transistor count | 2,080 million | 3,100 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | 4x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
Length | 171 mm | |
Supplementary power connectors | None | |
Laptop size | large | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1792 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 96 GB / s | 76.8 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 6000 MHz | 2400 MHz |
Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
CUDA | ||
DirectCompute | ||
DirectX 11 | DirectX 11 | |
ECC (Error Correcting Code) |