AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000M Comparison

The AMD FirePro M4150 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000M are both end-of-life mobile workstation graphics solutions, but they represent very different technological eras and design philosophies. The data in the database shows a clear overall winner in raw compute performance, yet each card has distinct strengths that matter for specific professional workloads. This analysis will dig into the benchmark scores, architectural foundations, and specification sheets to determine which card is better suited for which task.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013 points in the Geekbench OpenCL test, which is 16.9% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M's score of 3434. The AMD card wins the head-to-head benchmark with a delta of 16.9%.

Q: How does each card compare to its closest competitors?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 sits within 1.4% of its nearest rivals, being 0.5% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033) and 1.2% faster than the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964). The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M is 2.7% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (3528) but 3.1% faster than the Intel HD Graphics 530 (3332).

Q: What are the major architectural differences between the two chips?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M uses the older Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process. This results in significant differences in transistor density: 12.3 million transistors per mm² for AMD versus 4.9 million per mm² for NVIDIA.

Q: Which card has more memory and what type?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while the AMD FirePro M4150 has 1 GB of GDDR5 memory. Despite the smaller capacity, the AMD card's GDDR5 memory provides much higher bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Do both cards support the same modern APIs?

A: No. The AMD FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed in the database.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The database lists a TDP of 55 W for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M, while no TDP figure is recorded for the AMD FirePro M4150. The AMD card's smaller 28 nm process and denser transistor layout (12.3M per mm²) suggest it is likely more power-efficient, but the exact wattage is not available for comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different foundations. The AMD FirePro M4150 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This is a modern, unified shader design that emphasizes parallel throughput. The chip, codenamed Opal, contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving it a very high transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². This density is a direct result of the smaller manufacturing process, which allows for more compute units in a smaller physical space.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M, in contrast, uses the Fermi architecture, which was designed for an earlier generation of GPUs. It is fabricated on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC, and uses the GF106 chip. This chip contains 1,170 million transistors, which is more than the AMD chip in absolute terms, but on a much larger die of 238 mm². The transistor density is only 4.9 million per mm², reflecting the older, less dense process technology. Fermi was designed with a strong focus on geometry processing and tessellation, but its compute capabilities are structured differently from GCN.

These architectural choices lead to different resource allocations. The AMD FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has fewer shading units at 192, but more TMUs (32) and double the ROPs (16). This suggests the NVIDIA card is tuned for texture-heavy and pixel-heavy work, while the AMD card can handle more parallel compute threads. The memory subsystems also differ: AMD uses 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while NVIDIA uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus width. The GDDR5 memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), resulting in 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the DDR3 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding only 28.80 GB/s. This is a massive bandwidth advantage for the AMD card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. In this test, the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013, and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M scores 3434. The AMD card wins with a delta of 16.9%. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the AMD card is significantly better at raw floating-point and compute tasks.

Looking at the nearest rivals, the AMD FirePro M4150's score of 4013 places it just 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033), and just ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977) by 0.9% and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964) by 1.2%. This shows that the AMD FirePro M4150 is performing at a level comparable to mid-range consumer and workstation GPUs from its time. The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M's score of 3434, meanwhile, is only 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740 (3431), and 1.3% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P4600 (3389). It is 2.7% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX (3528), which is notable because that is a low-end mobile chip from a later generation. This suggests the Quadro 2000M's compute performance has aged poorly relative to even integrated graphics solutions.

The wins tally is 1 for the AMD FirePro M4150 and 0 for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M in the head-to-head data. There is no test in the database where the NVIDIA card comes out ahead. The AMD card's advantage is likely driven by its higher memory bandwidth and greater number of shading units, which are critical for OpenCL workloads.

Specification Differences

The database reveals several key specification differences between the two cards. The most obvious is the process node: the AMD FirePro M4150 uses 28 nm, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M uses 40 nm. This leads to the transistor density disparity already mentioned (12.3M / mm² versus 4.9M / mm²), and also to a difference in die size: 77 mm² for AMD versus 238 mm² for NVIDIA.

Memory configuration differs sharply. The AMD card has 1024 MB of GDDR5 with a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has 2048 MB of DDR3 with a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit bus, but the memory type and effective clock speed (4 Gbps versus 1800 Mbps) create a 2.2x bandwidth advantage for AMD.

Compute resources are also distributed differently. The AMD FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M has 192. The NVIDIA card has 32 TMUs versus 24 on AMD, and 16 ROPs versus 8 on AMD. The pixel rate is 5.720 GPixel/s for AMD and 4.400 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, while the texture rate is 17.16 GTexel/s for AMD and 17.60 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. The FP32 performance is 549.1 GFLOPS for AMD and 422.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA, a 30% advantage for AMD.

The TDP is listed as 55 W for the NVIDIA card, with no value for the AMD card. Both use an MXM Module slot width, and both have display outputs that are portable device dependent. The bus interface differs: the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA card uses MXM-A (3.0). The NVIDIA card has no power connectors listed, while the AMD card's power connector field is null.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the AMD FirePro M4150 wins decisively in compute-heavy tasks. Its OpenCL score is 16.9% higher, and its FP32 performance is 30% higher than the NVIDIA card. This makes it the better choice for general-purpose GPU computing, including tasks like rendering, physics simulations, and other parallel workloads that rely on raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth. The GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is a major advantage for data-intensive operations, as it can feed the compute units much faster than the NVIDIA card's DDR3.

The NVIDIA Quadro 2000M, despite losing the compute benchmark, has its own areas of theoretical strength. It has double the ROPs (16 versus 8) and more TMUs (32 versus 24), which could make it more efficient at traditional rasterization tasks, such as fill-rate-limited 2D or 3D rendering in CAD applications. Its texture rate is slightly higher at 17.60 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s for AMD. The 2 GB memory capacity is also double that of the AMD card, which could allow for larger textures or datasets in some workstation applications, even if the bandwidth is much lower. The NVIDIA card also has a defined TDP of 55 W, which provides a known power envelope for system integration.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous on overall compute performance: the AMD FirePro M4150 is the faster GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 16.9%, and its FP32 throughput is 30% higher. Its GDDR5 memory provides more than double the bandwidth of the NVIDIA card's DDR3, which is critical for modern workloads. The AMD card also has access to Vulkan 1.2.170, a modern API that the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M lacks entirely.

However, the choice is not simply about raw speed. For users who primarily work with legacy applications that rely on fill-rate-limited rendering, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M's higher ROP count and 2 GB memory capacity might be more suitable. Its 55 W TDP is also a defined specification, which can be important for thermal design in mobile workstations.

For anyone prioritizing compute performance, modern API support, or memory bandwidth, the AMD FirePro M4150 is the clear pick from the database. Its 16.9% benchmark lead and 30% FP32 advantage are decisive. For users who need more memory capacity or who expect to use older, rasterization-focused software, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M remains a functional, if outdated, option. The final decision rests on whether the workload is compute-bound or fill-rate-bound, but the recorded measurements side firmly with AMD.