GPU Comparison

The AMD FirePro M4150 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000D are both end-of-life workstation graphics cards, but they represent fundamentally different approaches to mobile and desktop computing. Based on the single benchmark available, the AMD FirePro M4150 emerges as the faster card, scoring 4013 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the Quadro 2000D's 3930, a 2.1% advantage. However, the data reveals that these are closely matched products with distinct architectural philosophies, making the choice between them dependent on specific use cases rather than raw performance alone.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4150 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available: Geekbench OpenCL. Its score of 4013 places it 2.1% ahead of the Quadro 2000D's 3930. This advantage, while modest, is consistent across its nearest rival comparisons. The FirePro M4150 sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000D sits at the 23rd percentile, indicating they occupy nearly identical performance tiers in the broader GPU landscape.

The Quadro 2000D, despite losing the head-to-head, has its own strengths that are not captured in a single compute benchmark. Its nearest rival list shows it performing competitively, trailing the AMD Radeon R5 M420 by only 0.7% and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M by 0.7%, while leading the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D by 0.3%. This suggests the Quadro 2000D is well-positioned within its immediate competitive set, even if it falls slightly behind the FirePro M4150.

For compute-heavy workloads measured by OpenCL, the FirePro M4150 is the clear winner. The data does not include gaming, professional CAD, or rendering benchmarks, so any use-case split must rely on the architectural differences and the single compute score. The FirePro M4150's higher shading unit count (384 vs 192) and superior memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs 41.60 GB/s) suggest it would excel in parallel compute tasks, while the Quadro 2000D's higher texture rate (20.00 GTexel/s vs 17.16 GTexel/s) and pixel rate alignment hint at potential advantages in texture-heavy workloads, though no benchmark confirms this.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from completely different architectural generations. The AMD FirePro M4150 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process node from TSMC, featuring the Opal chip. It packs 950 million transistors onto a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D uses the Fermi architecture on a much older 40 nm process, also from TSMC, with the GF106 chip. It contains 1,170 million transistors on a significantly larger 238 mm² die, resulting in a much lower transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter.

The memory subsystems differ notably. Both cards have 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, but the FirePro M4150 operates its memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000D runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective), providing only 41.60 GB/s. This 53.8% bandwidth advantage for the AMD card is substantial and likely contributes to its OpenCL lead.

Compute resources are starkly different. The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro 2000D has half the shading units at 192, but more TMUs at 32 and double the ROPs at 16. The FirePro M4150 achieves 549.1 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and 17.16 GTexel/s texture rate, while the Quadro 2000D delivers 480.0 GFLOPS and 20.00 GTexel/s. The pixel rates are close: 5.720 GPixel/s for AMD versus 5.000 GPixel/s for NVIDIA.

API support also diverges. The FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro 2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. The power profiles differ significantly, with the Quadro 2000D rated at 62 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the FirePro M4150 lists no TDP. The physical formats are also distinct: the FirePro M4150 is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the Quadro 2000D is a single-slot card measuring 178 mm by 111 mm with 2x DVI outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013 against the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D's 3930. This 2.1% delta is modest but consistent with the FirePro M4150's positioning among its nearest rivals. The FirePro M4150 trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M by just 0.5% (4033 vs 4013), while leading the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 by 0.9% (3977), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 by 1.2% (3964), and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M by 1.4% (3957).

The Quadro 2000D's nearest rival data tells a similar story of tight competition. It leads the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D by 0.3% (3919 vs 3930) but trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M by 0.6% (3953), the AMD Radeon R5 M420 by 0.7% (3956), and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M by 0.7% (3957). These sub-1% deltas indicate the Quadro 2000D is right at the center of its performance cluster.

The 2.1% head-to-head win for the FirePro M4150 is the largest margin in either card's immediate rival set, suggesting that while both cards are competitive in their respective tiers, the AMD offering has a slight edge in OpenCL compute. The architectural advantages of the FirePro M4150, namely its 2x shading units and 54% higher memory bandwidth, likely explain this result. The Quadro 2000D's higher TMU count (32 vs 24) and ROP count (16 vs 8) do not translate into a compute win in this test, though they may benefit other workloads not represented in the data.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that for Geekbench OpenCL compute performance, the AMD FirePro M4150 is the superior choice. Its 2.1% lead over the Quadro 2000D, combined with its higher shading unit count, greater memory bandwidth, and support for Vulkan, makes it the more capable card for general-purpose GPU compute tasks. The FirePro M4150 also benefits from being a newer design on a 28 nm process, which contributes to its higher transistor density and efficiency.

However, the Quadro 2000D is not without merit. Its lower TDP of 62 W, single-slot form factor, and dedicated DVI outputs make it a practical choice for desktop workstation environments where space and power are constraints. The Quadro 2000D's higher TMU and ROP counts suggest it may perform better in texture-heavy or rasterization-focused workloads, though no benchmark data confirms this.

For users prioritizing raw OpenCL compute, the FirePro M4150 is the pick. For those needing a compact, low-power desktop card with established driver support and no Vulkan requirement, the Quadro 2000D remains viable. The 1-point percentile difference (24th vs 23rd) reinforces that these are near-equivalent products, with the FirePro M4150 holding a slight but measurable edge.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013, which is 2.1% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D's 3930.

Q: How does the FirePro M4150 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It trails the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M by 0.5% (4033) and leads the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 by 0.9% (3977), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 by 1.2% (3964), and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M by 1.4% (3957).

Q: What are the key memory differences between the two cards?

A: Both have 1024 MB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but the FirePro M4150's memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro 2000D runs at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) for 41.60 GB/s.

Q: Does the Quadro 2000D support Vulkan?

A: No. The Quadro 2000D lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 support but no Vulkan, while the FirePro M4150 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the physical size of the Quadro 2000D?

A: It measures 178 mm (7 inches) in length and 111 mm (4.4 inches) in height, and is a single-slot card with 2x DVI outputs.

Q: How do their shading unit counts compare?

A: The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, exactly double the Quadro 2000D's 192. The Quadro 2000D has more TMUs (32 vs 24) and ROPs (16 vs 8).

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro M4150 | NVIDIA Quadro 2000D |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 41.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 192 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.720 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.16 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 549.1 GFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 62 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 2x DVI |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | None |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 178 mm x 111 mm |

| Release Date | 2013-10-15 | 2011-10-04 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 599 USD |