AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct benchmark comparison between these two cards, and the result is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20,125 points against 5,537 for the AMD FirePro M4000. That is a 263.5% advantage for the NVIDIA card, meaning it delivers roughly three and a half times the compute performance in this workload. This is not a marginal gap; it is a generational chasm in raw throughput.

Contextualizing the P2000 against its nearest rivals in the database, its average benchmark score of 6,049 places it within a tight cluster. The GeForce MX230 averages 6,077 (0.5% higher), the RTX A400 averages 6,078 (0.5% higher), the Radeon 760M averages 6,019 (0.5% lower), and the Radeon RX 6400 averages 6,001 (0.8% lower). The P2000 sits essentially at parity with these modern entries, which underscores how well it holds up despite being end-of-life hardware. Its 35th percentile ranking across all GPUs means most cards in the database are faster, but among its immediate peers it is competitive.

The FirePro M4000, by contrast, has an average benchmark score of 5,537, placing it in the 32nd percentile. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce MX130 at 5,508 (0.5% higher), the GTX 765M at 5,501 (0.7% higher), the Radeon R7 M440 at 5,483 (1% higher), and the Quadro M500M at 5,604 (1.2% lower). The M4000 is essentially on par with those older mobile parts, but it is nowhere near the P2000's league. The head-to-head OpenCL gap of 263.5% dwarfs any of the small percentage differences seen within each card's rival cluster.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the superior performer in every measurable way available in this comparison. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark, and its overall average score is higher. If the choice is between these two for any compute-oriented task, the P2000 is the clear pick, provided the system can accommodate a single-slot, 196 mm card that draws 75 W and requires a 250 W suggested PSU. The FirePro M4000, with its 33 W TDP and MXM module form factor, consumes less power and fits in portable devices, but that is its only practical advantage. For anyone prioritizing performance, the P2000's 3.031 TFLOPS FP32 throughput versus the M4000's 691.2 GFLOPS is a 4.4x gap in theoretical compute, and the real-world OpenCL result confirms it.

The M4000 remains a viable option only for legacy mobile workstations where power draw is critical and the workload is light. Its 1 GB memory capacity and 64 GB/s bandwidth are severely limiting by modern standards. The P2000 offers 5 GB GDDR5 with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth, which is more than twice the bandwidth and five times the capacity. The verdict is straightforward: choose the P2000 unless the physical constraints of an MXM laptop force the M4000.

Architecture Differences

These two GPUs come from different eras and design philosophies. The Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip built on TSMC's 16 nm process, packing 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 22.0 million per mm². It is part of the Pascal architecture, specifically the Quadro Pascal generation, and was released in February 2017. Its predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta.

The FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip on TSMC's 28 nm process, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, for a density of 12.2 million per mm². It belongs to the GCN 1.0 architecture, in the FirePro Mobile generation, and launched in June 2012. Its predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. The process node difference alone, 16 nm versus 28 nm, explains much of the performance gap, since the P2000 packs nearly three times the transistors into a die that is only about 60% larger.

The P2000 features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs. The M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Every one of those counts is exactly half or less on the AMD card. The P2000's pixel rate is 59.20 GPixel/s versus 10.80 GPixel/s for the M4000, and its texture rate is 94.72 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 3.031 TFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. The M4000 has no listed FP16 capability, while the P2000 lists 47.36 GFLOPS FP16 at a 1:64 ratio, which indicates it is not optimized for half-precision work.

API support differs as well. The P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The P2000 has the newer DirectX feature level and a more recent Vulkan version. Display outputs also diverge sharply: the P2000 offers four DisplayPort 1.4a connections, while the M4000's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile MXM nature.

FAQ

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 provides 140.2 GB/s across a 160-bit bus with GDDR5 memory clocked at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective). The AMD FirePro M4000 provides 64.00 GB/s across a 128-bit bus with GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The P2000 has over double the bandwidth.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Quadro P2000 has a 75 W TDP and requires a suggested 250 W PSU, using a single-slot design with no power connectors. The FirePro M4000 has a 33 W TDP, uses an MXM Module slot width, and has no listed suggested PSU. The M4000 draws less than half the power.

Q: How do their form factors compare?

A: The P2000 is a 196 mm long, 111 mm high single-slot card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The M4000 is an MXM-A (3.0) module with no listed dimensions, designed for portable devices. The P2000 is for desktop workstations; the M4000 is for laptops.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro P2000 has 1,024 shading units, while the FirePro M4000 has 512. The P2000 also has 64 TMUs versus 32, and 40 ROPs versus 16.

Q: What is the release date gap between them?

A: The FirePro M4000 was released on June 26, 2012. The Quadro P2000 was released on February 5, 2017. That is nearly five years between launches, which explains the architectural leap.

Q: Which card has better OpenCL performance?

A: The P2000 scores 20,125 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5,537 for the M4000, a 263.5% delta. The P2000 is the clear winner in this compute workload.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 wins in every category where data exists. It dominates the only head-to-head benchmark, OpenCL compute, by a factor of 3.6x. Its memory capacity of 5 GB versus 1 GB makes it suitable for larger datasets and multi-application workloads. Its 140.2 GB/s bandwidth allows faster texture streaming and data movement. Its 59.20 GPixel/s pixel rate and 94.72 GTexel/s texture rate give it strong rasterization throughput for professional visualization tasks. The four DisplayPort 1.4a outputs enable multi-monitor setups, which is typical for CAD and content creation.

The FirePro M4000 wins in power efficiency. Its 33 W TDP is less than half the P2000's 75 W, making it suitable for battery-constrained portable workstations. It also has a smaller physical footprint with its MXM module design, which fits in laptops where the P2000's 196 mm single-slot card cannot go. Its 691.2 GFLOPS FP32 is sufficient for light professional workloads from its 2012 era, but it is outclassed by the P2000's 3.031 TFLOPS.

For compute-heavy tasks like rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference, the P2000 is the only rational choice. For basic mobile workstation use where the GPU is secondary and power draw matters, the M4000 has a niche, but that niche is narrow. The P2000's 35th percentile ranking versus the M4000's 32nd percentile shows both are below median in the current database, but the P2000 is still markedly ahead of its older rival.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The process node is 16 nm for the P2000 versus 28 nm for the M4000. Transistor count is 4,400 million versus 1,500 million. Die size is 200 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density is 22.0M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm².

Clock speeds: the P2000 has a base clock of 1076 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz, while the M4000 has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory clock is 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Memory configuration: the P2000 has 5 GB GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus with 140.2 GB/s bandwidth. The M4000 has 1 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units: the P2000 has 1,024 shaders, 64 TMUs, and 40 ROPs. The M4000 has 512 shaders, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 59.20 GPixel/s versus 10.80 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 94.72 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. FP32 is 3.031 TFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. The P2000 lists FP16 at 47.36 GFLOPS (1:64); the M4000 has no FP16 listing.

Power and physical: the P2000 is 75 W, single-slot, PCIe 3.0 x16, 196 mm long and 111 mm high, with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The M4000 is 33 W, MXM Module, MXM-A (3.0), with no dimensions and no suggested PSU.

Display and APIs: the P2000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a outputs; the M4000 has portable-device-dependent outputs. The P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Release and status: the P2000 launched February 5, 2017, with a predecessor of Quadro Maxwell and successor of Quadro Volta. The M4000 launched June 26, 2012, with a predecessor of FirePro Mobility and successor of Radeon Pro Mobile. Both are end-of-life, but the P2000 is five years newer and built on a far more advanced process.