FirePro W9100 vs Quadro M5500
FirePro W9100
Popular choices:
Quadro M5500
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FirePro W9100 is positioned at rank 299 and the Quadro M5500 is on rank 141, so the Quadro M5500 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro W9100
Performance Per Dollar Quadro M5500
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro M5500 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.2% higher G3D Mark score. However, the FirePro W9100 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | FirePro W9100 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.2%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.2%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | Standard Size (275mm) | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro M5500 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro M5500 holds the technical lead. Priced at $200 (vs $200), it costs 0% less, resulting in a 2.2% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FirePro W9100 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+2.2%) |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro W9100 and Quadro M5500
FirePro W9100
The FirePro W9100 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in March 26 2014. It features the GCN 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 930 MHz. It has 2816 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 275W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,748 points.
Quadro M5500
The Quadro M5500 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 8 2016. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1140 MHz to 1165 MHz. It has 2048 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 7,915 points.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro W9100 scores 7,748 and the Quadro M5500 reaches 7,915 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.2% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro W9100 is built on GCN 2.0 while the Quadro M5500 uses Maxwell 2.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,816 (FirePro W9100) vs 2,048 (Quadro M5500). Raw compute: 5.238 TFLOPS (FirePro W9100) vs 4.772 TFLOPS (Quadro M5500).
| Feature | FirePro W9100 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 7,748 | 7,915+2% |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 2816+38% | 2048 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 5.238 TFLOPS+10% | 4.772 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 64 |
| TMUs | 176+38% | 128 |
| L1 Cache | 704 KB | 768 KB+9% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro W9100 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The FirePro W9100 comes with 16 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro M5500 has 8 GB. The FirePro W9100 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 256-bit vs 256-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (FirePro W9100) vs 2 MB (Quadro M5500) — the Quadro M5500 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | FirePro W9100 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 16 GB+100% | 8 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR6 |
| Bus Width | 256-bit | 256-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (FirePro W9100) vs 12 (12_1) (Quadro M5500). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 6 vs 4.
| Feature | FirePro W9100 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 6+50% | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 2.0 (FirePro W9100) vs NVENC (Maxwell) (Quadro M5500). Decoder: UVD 4.2 vs NVDEC (Maxwell). Supported codecs: H.264 (FirePro W9100) vs H.264,H.265,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro M5500).
| Feature | FirePro W9100 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 2.0 | NVENC (Maxwell) |
| Decoder | UVD 4.2 | NVDEC (Maxwell) |
| Codecs | H.264 | H.264,H.265,VP9,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro W9100 draws 275W versus the Quadro M5500's 150W — a 58.8% difference. The Quadro M5500 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro W9100) vs 350W (Quadro M5500). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 275mm vs 0mm, occupying 2 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 93 vs 85.
| Feature | FirePro W9100 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 275W | 150W-45% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 275mm | 0mm |
| Height | 111mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 2 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 93 | 85-9% |
| Perf/Watt | 28.2 | 52.8+87% |
Value Analysis
The FirePro W9100 launched at $4000 MSRP and currently averages $200, while the Quadro M5500 launched at $800 and now averages $200. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 38.7 (FirePro W9100) vs 39.6 (Quadro M5500) — the Quadro M5500 offers 2.3% better value. The Quadro M5500 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2014).
| Feature | FirePro W9100 | Quadro M5500 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $4000 | $800-80% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $200 | $200 |
| Performance per Dollar | 38.7 | 39.6+2% |
| Codename | Hawaii | GM204 |
| Release | March 26 2014 | April 8 2016 |
| Ranking | #328 | #321 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on FirePro W9100 and Quadro M5500
