RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile vs FirePro W5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W5000 with RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile outperforms W5000 by a whopping 491% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 599 | 105 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.64 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.36 | 34.32 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | GB203 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 August 2012 (14 years ago) | 19 March 2025 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 10496 |
| Core clock speed | 825 MHz | 990 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1680 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 95 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.60 | 551.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.267 TFLOPS | 35.27 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 112 |
| TMUs | 48 | 328 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 328 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 82 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 10.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 64 MB |
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 support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | 183 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Form factor | full height / half length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 24 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | 896.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| DisplayPort count | 2 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 27−30
−530%
| 170
+530%
|
| 1440p | 18−21
−561%
| 119
+561%
|
| 4K | 14−16
−500%
| 84
+500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 22.19 | no data |
| 1440p | 33.28 | no data |
| 4K | 42.79 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160
+0%
|
160
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Valorant | 240−250
+0%
|
240−250
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−105
+0%
|
100−105
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 300−310
+0%
|
300−310
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 138
+0%
|
138
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Valorant | 280−290
+0%
|
280−290
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 168
+0%
|
168
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
This is how FirePro W5000 and RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile is 530% faster in 1080p
- RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile is 561% faster in 1440p
- RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile is 500% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 56 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.13 | 42.13 |
| Recency | 7 August 2012 | 19 March 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 24 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 95 Watt |
FirePro W5000 has 27% lower power consumption.
RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile, on the other hand, has a 491% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W5000 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W5000 is a workstation graphics card while RTX PRO 5000 Blackwell Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
