AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

# AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000

The AMD FirePro M4150 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 are both end-of-life workstation-class GPUs, but they represent different eras of mobile and desktop computing. In the single available benchmark comparison, the AMD FirePro M4150 edges out the NVIDIA Quadro 2000, scoring 4013 versus 3898 in Geekbench OpenCL, a 3% margin. The AMD part ranks at the 24th percentile among all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000 sits just one point lower at the 23rd percentile, placing both firmly in entry-level territory for their respective generations.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the AMD FirePro M4150 takes the win with a score of 4013 against the NVIDIA Quadro 2000’s 3898. That 3% delta is modest but consistent, and it aligns with the broader competitive positioning of each card. The FirePro M4150’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, scores 4033, meaning the AMD part trails by a mere 0.5% — essentially a statistical tie. Meanwhile, the Quadro 2000’s closest competitor, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D, scores 3930, which puts the Quadro 2000 0.8% behind its own sibling. This suggests the FirePro M4150 is punching at the level of a mid-range mobile GeForce part, while the Quadro 2000 is hovering around integrated-graphics territory.

Looking at the rival clusters, the FirePro M4150 sits within a tight band of scores ranging from 3957 to 4033. Its direct rivals include the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, 0.9% behind the FirePro) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964, 1.2% behind). The Quadro 2000, by contrast, sees its nearest rivals clustered between 3883 and 3953, with the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883) only 0.4% behind and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953) 1.4% ahead. The data shows the FirePro M4150 operating in a higher performance band overall: its score of 4013 would place it above every single rival listed for the Quadro 2000, including the GeForce GT 745M that leads that pack.

The delta between the two cards is small in absolute terms — 115 points on a roughly 4000-point scale — but the percentile ranking confirms the gap is real. At 24th percentile, the FirePro M4150 is just above the 23rd-percentile Quadro 2000, meaning the AMD chip outranks a slightly larger share of the GPU population. For compute workloads that rely on OpenCL, the FirePro M4150’s 3% advantage translates to measurable, if not dramatic, gains in throughput.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4150 wins the only benchmark category tested, so it holds a definitive edge in raw OpenCL compute. That 3% lead comes from its modern architecture and higher memory bandwidth. The FirePro M4150 delivers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the Quadro 2000’s 41.60 GB/s — a 54% advantage that directly benefits memory-bound compute tasks. Its FP32 throughput of 549.1 GFLOPS also outpaces the Quadro 2000’s 480.0 GFLOPS, a 14.4% gap. For workloads like fluid simulation, image processing, or any OpenCL-accelerated task that scales with memory bandwidth and shader throughput, the FirePro M4150 is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000, despite losing the compute benchmark, has its own strengths in other metrics. It offers higher texture fill rate at 20.00 GTexel/s versus the FirePro M4150’s 17.16 GTexel/s, a 16.5% advantage. It also has double the ROPs (16 versus 8) and double the TMUs per shader ratio, with 32 TMUs against the FirePro’s 24. Pixel rate is close — 5.000 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 5.720 GPixel/s for the FirePro — but the NVIDIA card’s geometry throughput may serve certain rasterization-bound tasks better. The Quadro 2000 also supports dual DisplayPort outputs plus a DVI connection, whereas the FirePro M4150’s display outputs are "portable device dependent," meaning its connectivity is dictated by the laptop vendor. For multi-monitor workstation setups on a desktop, the Quadro 2000’s fixed display configuration is a practical advantage.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, reflecting their different release timelines. The AMD FirePro M4150 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process at TSMC, packing 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die. That yields a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm², a figure that reflects the efficiency of a modern (for its time) manufacturing node. The chip, codenamed Opal, belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation and launched in October 2013. It features 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, paired with 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), producing that 64.00 GB/s bandwidth figure. The FirePro M4150 supports PCIe 3.0 x8 and comes as an MXM module, meaning it is designed for laptop replacement or upgrade.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 uses the much older Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process at the same foundry, TSMC. Its GF106 chip contains 1,170 million transistors spread across a 238 mm² die, giving a transistor density of just 4.9M / mm² — less than half the FirePro’s. This GPU launched in December 2010, nearly three years earlier, and its age shows in the specifications. The Quadro 2000 has only 192 shading units (half the FirePro’s count), but compensates with 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. Its memory configuration is identical in size and bus width — 1024 MB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus — but the memory clock is lower at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), resulting in that 41.60 GB/s bandwidth. The card uses a PCIe 2.0 x16 interface, is single-slot, and draws 62 W with no power connectors required, while the suggested PSU is 250 W.

API support also differs. The FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, making it far more future-proof for modern compute and graphics APIs. The Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support at all. For current workloads that leverage Vulkan, the Quadro 2000 is simply not an option. The FirePro M4150’s transistor density advantage — 12.3M / mm² versus 4.9M / mm² — also speaks to the efficiency gains from the 28 nm node, which allows more compute units per square millimeter and lower power draw per transistor.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD FirePro M4150 is the stronger compute performer, winning the only direct benchmark by 3% and offering significantly higher memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s) and FP32 throughput (549.1 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS). Its modern GCN architecture brings Vulkan support and a smaller, denser die, making it the more capable choice for OpenCL-based workloads, image processing, or any task that benefits from memory bandwidth. The FirePro M4150 also sits at a higher percentile rank (24th versus 23rd), confirming its slight edge over the broader GPU landscape.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000, however, is not without merit. Its higher texture fill rate (20.00 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s) and doubled ROP count (16 versus 8) suggest it could handle certain rasterization-heavy tasks — especially those that rely on texture throughput or pixel output — more effectively. Its fixed display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort) and desktop single-slot form factor make it a straightforward drop-in for multi-monitor workstation setups, whereas the FirePro M4150’s MXM module requires a compatible laptop chassis. The Quadro 2000 also carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD, which is informational only, while the FirePro M4150 has no listed MSRP.

For users who prioritize compute performance, modern API support, and memory bandwidth, the AMD FirePro M4150 is the clear pick. Its 3% benchmark lead and 54% bandwidth advantage make it the more future-ready option, particularly for OpenCL workloads. For those who need a desktop workstation card with guaranteed multi-display outputs and higher texture throughput, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 remains a viable legacy option — but the data shows it is outclassed in raw compute by its AMD rival. Ultimately, the FirePro M4150 wins 1 benchmark to 0, and that single win aligns with its superior specifications across nearly every compute-relevant metric.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 scores 3898, giving the AMD part a 3% advantage in this benchmark.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two cards?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 offers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 provides 41.60 GB/s — a 54% difference in favor of the AMD card.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 support Vulkan?

A: No, the Quadro 2000 has no Vulkan support. The AMD FirePro M4150 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, along with DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes for each GPU?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die (28 nm process), while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die (40 nm process).

Q: What is the recommended power supply for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000?

A: The suggested PSU for the Quadro 2000 is 250 W, and the card itself has a TDP of 62 W with no power connectors required. The FirePro M4150 has no TDP or PSU specifications listed.

Q: Which card has better texture fill rate and ROP count?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000 has a higher texture fill rate at 20.00 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s for the AMD FirePro M4150, and it also has double the ROPs (16 versus 8). However, the FirePro M4150 has a higher pixel rate at 5.720 GPixel/s versus 5.000 GPixel/s for the Quadro 2000.