AMD FirePro D300 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and AMD FirePro D300 are both end-of-life professional workstation GPUs, but they represent very different design philosophies and performance tiers. The data shows a clear, if narrow, overall victory for the NVIDIA part, driven primarily by its stronger showing in modern graphics APIs. The Quadro M4000M achieves an average benchmark score of 20,480, placing it in the 65th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro D300 trails with an average score of 19,637 and a 64th percentile ranking. This places the two cards in nearly the same performance bracket, but the nuances of their individual benchmark results reveal distinct strengths and weaknesses.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between the two cards is limited to two synthetic workloads, but the results are telling. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 19,989, narrowly edging out the AMD FirePro D300’s 19,515. That is a 2.4% margin in favor of the NVIDIA card. While this is a decisive win for the M4000M, the performance gap is modest, indicating that in raw compute throughput for general-purpose tasks, these two professional GPUs are closely matched. The M4000M’s slight advantage here can be attributed to its higher peak floating-point performance, but the data does not suggest a dramatic stomping.

The more significant divergence appears in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the Quadro M4000M scores 20,971, while the FirePro D300 manages only 19,759. This expands the NVIDIA lead to 6.1%. This is the single biggest win for either card across the benchmark suite. The larger delta in the Vulkan test suggests that the Maxwell 2.0 architecture in the M4000M has a more efficient implementation for modern, low-level graphics APIs compared to the older GCN 1.0 architecture found in the FirePro D300. For any workload that leverages Vulkan, the NVIDIA card is the clear choice, as it handles the API’s threading and command buffer management more effectively.

The overall win tally confirms this narrative: the Quadro M4000M wins 2 out of 2 benchmarks, with no wins for the FirePro D300. However, the context of the rivals’ scores is crucial. The M4000M’s average score of 20,480 is virtually identical to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, which averages 20,534, a delta of only -0.3%. This indicates that the M4000M is punching far above its weight in synthetic compute benchmarks, performing on par with a much newer mobile gaming GPU. In contrast, the FirePro D300’s average of 19,637 is nearly matched by the NVIDIA Quadro K5200, which scores 19,602, a delta of 0.2%. This shows the D300 is firmly in the performance class of a previous-generation professional flagship, rather than competing with newer hardware.

Where Each One Wins

Looking strictly at the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M wins every single workload where the two are compared. Its wins are not just about raw score; they are about consistency across different API types. The M4000M’s 6.1% lead in Vulkan is particularly noteworthy, as it points to a distinct advantage in scenarios that rely on modern rendering techniques and driver overhead reduction. For professionals using software that has transitioned to Vulkan for viewport acceleration or compute tasks, the M4000M will deliver a tangibly smoother experience.

The AMD FirePro D300, while not winning any head-to-head tests, still has a performance profile that cannot be dismissed. Its OpenCL score of 19,515 is only 2.4% behind the M4000M, which is a negligible difference in real-world terms. In OpenCL-heavy applications—such as certain video encoding, physics simulation, or data processing tasks—the two cards would be functionally interchangeable in terms of throughput. The D300’s performance is also competitive with its own set of rivals; it is 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 7900 XTX in average score, a massive modern flagship, which speaks to the FirePro’s efficiency in compute workloads relative to its age.

The split is therefore not about one card being faster in one type of task. The data suggests the M4000M is the better choice for any workload that utilizes Vulkan, while the D300 remains competent for pure OpenCL compute, where its deficit is minimal. The D300 also offers a specific feature that the M4000M lacks: four dedicated DisplayPort 1.2 outputs on the card itself. This makes it a more straightforward solution for multi-display setups without relying on the laptop’s or workstation’s integrated outputs, whereas the M4000M’s display outputs are listed as “Portable Device Dependent,” meaning its connectivity is dictated by the host system.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is substantial, explaining their benchmark behavior. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, using the GM204 chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The AMD FirePro D300, in contrast, uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Pitcairn chip, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. However, the AMD chip is significantly smaller and less complex, with only 2,800 million transistors on a 212 mm² die, yielding a similar density of 13.2M per mm².

These transistor counts translate directly into compute resources. Both cards have the same number of shading units (1,280) and texture mapping units (80). However, the NVIDIA part has double the ROPs, with 64 compared to the AMD’s 32. This is a critical difference that directly impacts pixel fill rates. The M4000M achieves a pixel rate of 64.83 GPixel/s, while the D300 is limited to 27.20 GPixel/s. This more than doubles the pixel throughput, giving the NVIDIA card a massive advantage in any rasterization-heavy workload, even if the compute units are equal. The texture rates also favor NVIDIA, at 81.04 GTexel/s versus the D300’s 68.00 GTexel/s.

Memory configurations also differ. The M4000M comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, running at 1253 MHz for an effective 5 Gbps, yielding a bandwidth of 160.4 GB/s. The FirePro D300 has only 2 GB of GDDR5, also on a 256-bit bus, but at a slightly higher clock of 1270 MHz (5.1 Gbps effective), giving it a marginally higher bandwidth of 162.6 GB/s. While the D300 has a slight memory bandwidth advantage, the M4000M’s double capacity is far more significant for modern professional workloads that require large datasets and textures to reside in VRAM. The power profiles are also distinct, with the M4000M rated at a 100 W TDP and the D300 at 150 W, suggesting the NVIDIA card is more power-efficient despite its higher pixel throughput.

Feature support further separates them. The M4000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The D300 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and the older Vulkan 1.2.170. This explains the M4000M’s superior Vulkan benchmark score, as it natively supports a more recent version of the API specification. The physical form factors also differ: the M4000M is an MXM module, while the D300 is a single-slot card with a 242 mm (9.5 inches) length and a suggested PSU of 450 W.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is the definitive winner for performance. It beats the AMD FirePro D300 in both OpenCL and Vulkan tests, offering a 2.4% and 6.1% advantage, respectively. Its higher ROP count and larger memory capacity make it the superior choice for graphics-intensive tasks, high-resolution rendering, and modern API workloads. The M4000M’s average score places it on par with the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile, a remarkable feat for a 2015-era professional card, indicating that it still holds up well in synthetic compute benchmarks.

The AMD FirePro D300, however, is not without its merits. Its OpenCL performance is within striking distance of the M4000M, and it offers a slightly higher memory bandwidth. For users whose primary applications rely on OpenCL and do not tax pixel throughput, the D300 can deliver comparable compute results. The inclusion of four DisplayPort outputs is a tangible benefit for multi-monitor setups, making it a more self-contained solution in that regard. The D300’s average score is also competitive with modern cards like the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT, showing it is not obsolete in compute density.

The verdict is clear for users deciding between these two: the Quadro M4000M is the better GPU for almost all modern workloads. Its Vulkan support is more robust, its pixel rate is vastly superior, and its memory capacity is double. Choose the M4000M for any task involving 3D modeling, CAD, or GPU-accelerated rendering that leverages DirectX 12 or Vulkan. Choose the FirePro D300 only if your specific software stack is heavily optimized for OpenCL and you require the card’s integrated DisplayPort outputs for a fixed multi-display workstation, accepting that its performance ceiling is lower and its overall score trails by 4.1%.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M has a higher average benchmark score of 20,480, compared to the AMD FirePro D300’s 19,637.

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M in the Geekbench Vulkan test?

A: The Quadro M4000M scores 20,971 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 6.1% higher than the FirePro D300’s 19,759.

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and the AMD FirePro D300 have 1,280 shading units and 80 texture mapping units.

Q: What is the key difference in ROP count between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M has 64 ROPs, which is double the 32 ROPs found on the AMD FirePro D300, leading to a significantly higher pixel fill rate.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer version of the Vulkan API?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD FirePro D300 supports the older Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the memory capacity difference between the two?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD FirePro D300 has only 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, both on a 256-bit bus.