AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark recorded for both GPUs is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is decisively in favor of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000. The K4000 scores 6,816 points against 5,537 points for the AMD FirePro M4000, which translates to a 23.1% advantage for the NVIDIA card. This is a substantial margin in raw compute throughput, suggesting that the K4000 handles general-purpose GPU workloads with noticeably more headroom.

Context from the nearest rivals list reinforces this gap. The Quadro K4000 sits at the 34th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 5,982. Its closest competitors are the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5,986 (-0.1%), the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5,987 (-0.1%), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996 (-0.2%). All of these are within a fraction of a percent, meaning the K4000 is effectively tied with its immediate peers. The AMD FirePro M4000, by contrast, lands at the 32nd percentile with an average score of 5,537. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5,508 (+0.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5,501 (+0.7%), and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5,483 (+1%). The M4000 is slightly ahead of those, but the overall positioning is lower than the K4000's neighborhood.

The delta of 23.1% in OpenCL is the single head-to-head data point available, and it is the only measurement where both cards appear in the same test. The K4000 also has additional benchmark entries that the M4000 lacks: Geekbench Metal at 4,166 and Geekbench Vulkan at 6,964. These are not directly comparable since the M4000 has no recorded scores for those APIs, but they indicate that the K4000's compute performance is consistent across multiple frameworks. The OpenCL result alone, however, is enough to establish a clear hierarchy: the K4000 is the stronger compute performer in this pairing.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural lineages, and the data shows why their performance profiles diverge. The Quadro K4000 is built on NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, using the GK106 chip fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The die contains 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² area, which yields a transistor density of 11.5 million per mm². The FirePro M4000, meanwhile, uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the Chelsea chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. Its die is smaller at 123 mm² and packs 1,500 million transistors, giving a slightly higher density of 12.2 million per mm². Both chips are from the same process generation, but the K4000's larger die and higher transistor count point to a more complex and capable design.

Compute resources differ significantly. The K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs. The M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In raw throughput terms, the K4000 delivers 1,244.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the M4000 manages 691.2 GFLOPS. That is roughly an 80% advantage in theoretical compute, which aligns with the 23.1% lead seen in the OpenCL benchmark, though the real-world gap is smaller than the theoretical one would suggest, likely due to memory and scheduling bottlenecks. Pixel fill rates are 12.96 GPixel/s for the K4000 versus 10.80 GPixel/s for the M4000, and texture rates are 51.84 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. The K4000 leads in every shading and rasterization metric recorded.

Memory configurations also tell a story of different design priorities. The K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The M4000 has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s. Memory clocks are 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) for the K4000 and 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the M4000. The K4000 offers more than double the bandwidth, which is crucial for large datasets and high-resolution textures. The M4000's smaller memory pool and narrower bus make it a less capable option for memory-intensive tasks.

Power and physical specifications diverge as well. The K4000 is a desktop card with an 80 W TDP, a single-slot design, a 1x 6-pin power connector, and a suggested power supply of 250 W. It measures 241 mm in length and 111 mm in height. The M4000, by contrast, is a mobile module with a 33 W TDP, an MXM form factor, no power connectors, and dimensions that are not recorded. The M4000 uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the K4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the K4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the M4000's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile nature.

API support is broadly similar but not identical. Both support DirectX 12 (the K4000 at 11_0, the M4000 at 11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan (the K4000 at 1.2.175, the M4000 at 1.2.170). The differences are minor and unlikely to affect most workloads. Release dates place the K4000 in February 2013 and the M4000 in June 2012, making the M4000 the older design by roughly eight months. Both are end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The K4000 wins in every category where both cards have recorded data. Its OpenCL score is 23.1% higher, its FP32 throughput is 1,244.2 GFLOPS against 691.2 GFLOPS, its memory bandwidth is 134.8 GB/s against 64.00 GB/s, and its pixel and texture rates are higher across the board. The K4000 is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads, large frame buffers, and any scenario where memory bandwidth matters. Its 3 GB of VRAM, compared to the M4000's 1 GB, also makes it more suitable for multi-monitor setups or applications that load large textures and geometry into video memory.

The M4000's advantages are not in performance but in form factor and power. Its 33 W TDP is less than half of the K4000's 80 W, and its MXM module format is designed for laptops and compact systems. The M4000 has no power connectors, which simplifies installation in mobile chassis. Its smaller die, 123 mm² versus 221 mm², and lower transistor count of 1,500 million versus 2,540 million, suggest it produces less heat and may be easier to cool in constrained environments. The M4000 is also positioned differently in the rival landscape: its nearest competitors are mobile and entry-level desktop parts like the GeForce MX130 and GTX 765M, while the K4000's rivals include the Quadro K4000M and FirePro W4100, which are more workstation-oriented.

For desktop workstation use, the K4000's PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, dual DisplayPort outputs, and DVI output make it immediately usable in standard desktop systems. The M4000's "Portable Device Dependent" display outputs mean its connectivity is determined by the host laptop, which could be a limitation for users who need specific output configurations. The K4000's single-slot design and 241 mm length are typical for a workstation card, while the M4000's MXM form factor is only relevant for upgradeable laptops or specialized embedded systems.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the superior performer in this comparison. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 23.1%, and its architectural specifications support that result: more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, higher clocked memory, and more than double the bandwidth. The K4000 also has a higher percentile ranking, 34th versus 32nd, and a higher average benchmark score, 5,982 versus 5,537. Users who need compute performance, large memory capacity, or high fill rates should choose the K4000 without hesitation.

The AMD FirePro M4000 is not without merit, but its strengths are practical rather than performance-based. Its 33 W TDP and MXM form factor make it the only option here for mobile or ultra-compact systems. The 1 GB memory and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth are adequate for lighter workloads, and its nearest rivals show it is competitive within its own class. However, the M4000 has no benchmark wins against the K4000, and its OpenCL score is substantially lower. For any user who has a choice between the two, the K4000 is the data-backed pick. The M4000 only makes sense if the physical constraints of the system require a low-power mobile module.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 6,816 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5,537. The K4000 leads by 23.1%.

Q: How do the memory specifications compare?

A: The K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 134.8 GB/s bandwidth. The M4000 has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The K4000 has an 80 W TDP and requires a 1x 6-pin power connector. The M4000 has a 33 W TDP and uses no power connectors.

Q: Can the FirePro M4000 be used in a desktop workstation?

A: The M4000 uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface and an MXM module form factor, so it is designed for mobile systems. The K4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16 and includes DVI and DisplayPort outputs.

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6. The K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: The K4000's closest competitors are the Quadro K4000M (5,986), FirePro W4100 (5,987), and RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996). The M4000's closest competitors are the GeForce MX130 (5,508), GeForce GTX 765M (5,501), and Radeon R7 M440 (5,483).

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 | AMD FirePro M4000 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GK106 | Chelsea |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 3 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bus Width | 192 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 134.8 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 768 | 512 |

| TMUs | 64 | 32 |

| ROPs | 24 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.96 GPixel/s | 10.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 51.84 GTexel/s | 21.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,244.2 GFLOPS | 691.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 80 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not specified |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2013-02-28 | 2012-06-26 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell | Radeon Pro Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | 1,269 USD | Not specified |