AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark comparison between the AMD FirePro M4000 and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that measurement, the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979. This gives the AMD part a decisive 11.2% lead in compute performance, making it the clear winner in this specific workload.

Looking at the broader context, the AMD FirePro M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (average score 5508, just 0.5% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, 0.7% behind), and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, 1% behind). The only nearby competitor that beats it is the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, which scores 5604, putting the FirePro M4000 1.2% behind that card. The data indicates the FirePro M4000 is a solid mid-pack performer, slightly ahead of several older mobile chips but not a class leader.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000, by contrast, ranks at the 29th percentile. Its closest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (average score 4970, a 0.2% difference), the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998, 0.4% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018, 0.8% ahead). The AMD Radeon R7 M360 trails it by 1% with a score of 4931. These figures show the Quadro 4000 performing at a level comparable to integrated graphics and low-end discrete parts, which is a notable finding given its workstation pedigree.

When the two are placed directly against each other, the 558-point gap (5537 versus 4979) is substantial. The FirePro M4000 delivers over a tenth more raw compute throughput in OpenCL, which is the only metric where both cards have recorded data. This is a significant margin for any comparison, and it underscores that the AMD mobile workstation card holds a clear compute advantage over the older NVIDIA desktop workstation card.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is wide, and it shows in every major specification. The AMD FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip on Fermi architecture, also from TSMC but on a much larger 40 nm process. It contains 3,100 million transistors across a 529 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of just 5.9 million per square millimeter. The node difference is stark: 28 nm versus 40 nm means the AMD chip is built on a modern process that allows far better density and efficiency.

The compute resources also differ fundamentally. The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. Despite having half the shading units, the Quadro 4000 doubles the ROP count, which suggests it was designed with different rasterization priorities. In practice, the AMD card's higher shading unit count drives its superior OpenCL score.

Memory configurations are another major split. The FirePro M4000 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 4000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, running at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), yielding 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has double the memory capacity and nearly 40% more bandwidth, which matters for large datasets. However, the AMD card runs its memory at a higher effective clock speed, which partially compensates for the narrower bus.

Pixel and texture rates reflect the different design philosophies. The FirePro M4000 achieves 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s, while the Quadro 4000 reaches 7.600 GPixel/s and 15.20 GTexel/s. The AMD card is faster in both fill-rate metrics, which is consistent with its higher shading unit count. FP32 performance tells the same story: 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro M4000 versus 486.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro 4000, a 42% advantage for AMD.

Power consumption is where the tables turn. The FirePro M4000 has a TDP of just 33 W and uses an MXM module form factor with no power connectors, designed for portable systems. The Quadro 4000 draws 142 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and recommends a 300 W power supply. It is a single-slot desktop card measuring 241 mm long, 111 mm tall, and 20 mm wide. The AMD part is clearly engineered for mobile workloads, while the NVIDIA part is a full desktop card.

API support also differs. Both cards support DirectX 12, but the FirePro M4000 hits version 12 (11_1), while the Quadro 4000 reaches 12 (11_0). OpenGL 4.6 is common to both. For Vulkan, the FirePro M4000 supports version 1.2.170, while the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed. This is a meaningful gap for modern applications that rely on Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins in raw compute performance. Its OpenCL score of 5537 is 11.2% higher than the Quadro 4000's 4979. It also wins on architecture efficiency: the 28 nm process and higher transistor density mean it delivers more performance per watt and per square millimeter. For any workload that is compute-bound, such as OpenCL-accelerated rendering, simulation, or data processing, the FirePro M4000 is the stronger choice. Its higher shading unit count (512 versus 256) and faster FP32 throughput (691.2 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS) reinforce this.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. With 2 GB of VRAM versus 1 GB, it can hold larger textures, bigger geometry buffers, or more complex scenes without spilling to system memory. Its 256-bit bus and 89.86 GB/s bandwidth are substantially higher than the FirePro M4000's 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s. For memory-heavy tasks like large texture streaming or high-resolution display output, the Quadro 4000 has a clear edge. Its 32 ROPs versus 16 also suggest better performance in pixel-heavy scenarios, even though the measured pixel rate is lower due to clock differences.

The FirePro M4000 also wins on power efficiency. At 33 W versus 142 W, it consumes less than a quarter of the power. This makes it suitable for laptops and compact mobile workstations where thermal and battery constraints are paramount. The Quadro 4000, requiring a 300 W power supply and a 6-pin connector, is a desktop-only part. The FirePro M4000's MXM form factor and portable-device-dependent display outputs mean it slots into mobile systems, while the Quadro 4000's DVI and DisplayPort outputs are fixed for desktop monitors.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537, which is 11.2% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000's 4979 in the Geekbench OpenCL test.

Q: How do the two cards compare in memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth from its 256-bit bus and 2 GB of GDDR5, while the AMD FirePro M4000 has 64.00 GB/s from a 128-bit bus and 1 GB of GDDR5.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has a TDP of 33 W and uses an MXM module with no power connectors. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W, requires a single 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W power supply.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 support Vulkan?

A: No, the Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed. The AMD FirePro M4000 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 uses a 40 nm process from the same foundry.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on use case. If the priority is compute performance in OpenCL workloads, the AMD FirePro M4000 is the superior card. Its 5537 score versus 4979 is an 11.2% advantage, and its 512 shading units and 691.2 GFLOPS FP32 throughput dominate the Quadro 4000's 256 shading units and 486.4 GFLOPS. The FirePro M4000 is also far more efficient, drawing 33 W versus 142 W, which makes it the only realistic choice for mobile systems.

If the priority is memory capacity, bandwidth, or desktop connectivity, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has the edge. It offers 2 GB of VRAM versus 1 GB, 89.86 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, and a 256-bit bus versus 128-bit. Its 32 ROPs double the AMD card's 16, which may help in certain pixel-bound tasks, even though its measured pixel rate is lower. It also has fixed display outputs (DVI and DisplayPort) rather than portable-device-dependent outputs.

Given the benchmark results, the AMD FirePro M4000 is the better compute card, and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is the better memory-heavy desktop card. For most modern workloads that leverage OpenCL or Vulkan, the FirePro M4000 is the recommended pick. For legacy desktop workstation tasks that need large frame buffers, the Quadro 4000 remains serviceable. The 11.2% score gap is decisive, and the architecture advantages (28 nm versus 40 nm, 512 versus 256 shaders) reinforce that the AMD part is the more capable processor overall.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro M4000 | NVIDIA Quadro 4000 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Chip | Chelsea | GF100 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 89.86 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 256 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 32 | 32 |

| Raster Output Pipelines | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.80 GPixel/s | 7.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 15.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 691.2 GFLOPS | 486.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 33 W | 142 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 300 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | None |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 241 mm x 111 mm x 20 mm |

| Release Date | 2012-06-26 | 2010-11-01 |