FirePro M2000 vs Radeon Pro WX 5100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro WX 5100 with FirePro M2000, including specs and performance data.
Pro 5100 outperforms M2000 by a whopping 1199% 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 | 429 | 1164 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.65 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.67 | 2.39 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Ellesmere | Turks |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 18 November 2016 (9 years ago) | 1 July 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | 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 | 1792 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 713 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1086 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | 716 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 33 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 121.6 | 12.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 3.892 TFLOPS | 0.48 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 112 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 448 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | no data |
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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | n/a |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Form factor | no data | chip-down |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | 4x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| StereoOutput3D | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 110−120
+1122%
| 9
−1122%
|
| Full HD | 200−210
+1150%
| 16
−1150%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.50 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how Pro WX 5100 and FirePro M2000 compete in popular games:
- Pro WX 5100 is 1122% faster in 900p
- Pro WX 5100 is 1150% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 41 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.25 | 1.02 |
| Recency | 18 November 2016 | 1 July 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 33 Watt |
Pro WX 5100 has a 1199% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 186% more advanced lithography process.
FirePro M2000, on the other hand, has 127% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro WX 5100 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M2000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon Pro WX 5100 is a workstation graphics card while FirePro M2000 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.
