AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

The AMD FirePro M4150 and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M are both end-of-life mobile workstation graphics solutions, but the benchmark data clearly favors the newer AMD part. In the sole OpenCL benchmark available, the FirePro M4150 scores 4013, which is 7.9% higher than the Quadro 3000M’s 3718. This performance gap is reflected in their overall percentile rankings, with the AMD card sitting at the 24th percentile of all GPUs while the NVIDIA card sits at the 22nd. For users choosing between these two legacy options strictly on compute performance, the FirePro M4150 is the superior choice, though the Quadro 3000M offers double the memory capacity and a wider memory bus, which may matter for specific workloads.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if modest, victory for the AMD FirePro M4150 in raw compute throughput. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4013 puts it 7.9% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M’s 3718, and it also holds a higher percentile ranking (24th vs. 22nd). The AMD chip’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, scores 4033, meaning the FirePro M4150 is essentially neck-and-neck with that consumer part, trailing by just 0.5%. Meanwhile, the Quadro 3000M is statistically tied with the GeForce GT 740M, which scores 3717, showing a 0% delta.

However, the choice is not solely about compute speed. The Quadro 3000M offers 2 GB of GDDR5 memory compared to the FirePro M4150’s 1 GB, and it has a 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit. This results in the NVIDIA card delivering 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 25% higher than the AMD card’s 64.00 GB/s. For memory-bound applications that fit within the larger frame buffer, the Quadro 3000M could potentially offset its compute deficit. The AMD card does counter with a much more modern architecture (GCN 1.0 vs. Fermi), a smaller 28 nm process node, and support for Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Fermi-based Quadro lacks entirely.

For a user prioritizing raw OpenCL compute and modern API support, the AMD FirePro M4150 is the definitive pick. For a user whose workload is constrained by memory capacity or bandwidth, the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has a distinct specification advantage that the benchmark score alone does not capture. The data shows the AMD part wins the compute war, but the NVIDIA part wins the memory battle.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 has a higher average Geekbench OpenCL score of 4013, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M’s 3718, representing a 7.9% advantage for AMD.

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

A: The FirePro M4150’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, which scores 4033, putting the AMD card just 0.5% behind. It is also 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977) and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964).

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M have any advantages over the AMD FirePro M4150?

A: Yes. The Quadro 3000M features 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the FirePro M4150’s 1 GB, and a 256-bit bus width, which yields a memory bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s compared to the AMD card’s 64.00 GB/s.

Q: What is the TDP of the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M?

A: The Quadro 3000M has a TDP of 75 W, while the FirePro M4150’s TDP is not listed in the data.

Q: Which GPU supports the newer graphics APIs?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do the two GPUs rank globally?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 ranks at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M ranks at the 22nd percentile.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two mobile workstation GPUs is substantial. The AMD FirePro M4150 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using a 28 nm process at TSMC, whereas the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M uses the older Fermi architecture on a 40 nm node, also from TSMC. This process difference is significant: the AMD chip integrates 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The NVIDIA chip, in contrast, packs 1,950 million transistors onto a much larger 332 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 5.9M per mm².

The compute layouts diverge sharply. The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The Quadro 3000M has fewer shading units at 240, but more TMUs (40) and significantly more ROPs (32). This configuration suggests the NVIDIA part is designed for different workload characteristics, potentially favoring texture-heavy or fill-rate-bound tasks, while the AMD part emphasizes raw shader compute.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The AMD card uses a 128-bit bus with 1 GB of GDDR5, while the NVIDIA card uses a 256-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5. The effective memory clock for the FirePro M4150 is 4 Gbps, compared to 2.5 Gbps for the Quadro 3000M, though the NVIDIA card’s wider bus compensates to deliver higher overall bandwidth. In terms of API support, the AMD GCN architecture includes Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the Fermi-based NVIDIA card lists no Vulkan support, a notable limitation for modern applications.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification field. The AMD FirePro M4150 is built on a 28 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M uses 40 nm. Transistor counts are 950 million for AMD versus 1,950 million for NVIDIA, with die sizes of 77 mm² and 332 mm² respectively. The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the Quadro 3000M has 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs.

Memory configurations are starkly different: the AMD card offers 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA card offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. The FirePro M4150 achieves a pixel rate of 5.720 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 17.16 GTexel/s, whereas the Quadro 3000M achieves 4.500 GPixel/s and 18.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 549.1 GFLOPS for AMD versus 432.0 GFLOPS for NVIDIA.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is listed with a TDP of 75 W, while the AMD card’s TDP is not provided. Both use an MXM Module slot, but the bus interfaces differ: the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA card uses MXM-B (3.0). The NVIDIA card has no power connectors listed, while the AMD card’s power connector configuration is also not listed. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it results in a decisive win for the AMD FirePro M4150. The AMD card scores 4013, which is 7.9% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M’s score of 3718. This is a clear margin that aligns with the FP32 compute difference: the FirePro M4150 delivers 549.1 GFLOPS compared to the Quadro 3000M’s 432.0 GFLOPS, a 27% advantage in theoretical peak compute.

The margin is not overwhelming, however. The Quadro 3000M’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M, scores 3717, which is essentially identical to the Quadro’s own score (0% delta). This indicates the Quadro 3000M is performing at the expected level for its architecture. Meanwhile, the FirePro M4150’s nearest rival, the GeForce GT 755M, scores 4033, meaning the AMD card is only 0.5% behind that part. The AMD card also leads the Quadro K2000 (3964) by 1.2% and the GeForce 830M (3957) by 1.4%.

The benchmark data shows a single win for the AMD FirePro M4150 and zero wins for the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M. The 7.9% delta is meaningful but not transformative. It suggests that for compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, the AMD card will consistently outperform the NVIDIA card, but the difference may not be night-and-day in real-world applications. The NVIDIA card’s higher memory bandwidth (80.00 GB/s vs. 64.00 GB/s) is not captured in this OpenCL score, so memory-bound scenarios could narrow the gap.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4150 wins in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4013 is 7.9% higher than the Quadro 3000M’s 3718, and its FP32 throughput of 549.1 GFLOPS is significantly higher. The AMD card also wins on architecture modernity, with a 28 nm process, GCN 1.0 design, and Vulkan 1.2.170 support. For users running OpenCL-based compute tasks, rendering, or any workload that leverages shader units, the FirePro M4150 is the clear winner based on the data.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M wins on memory capacity and bandwidth. It offers 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the FirePro M4150’s 1 GB, and its 256-bit bus provides 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth compared to 64.00 GB/s. This gives the Quadro 3000M an edge in workloads that require large datasets to reside in VRAM or that are bottlenecked by memory throughput. Its higher ROP count (32 vs. 8) also suggests a potential advantage in pixel-heavy operations, though the AMD card’s higher pixel rate (5.720 GPixel/s vs. 4.500 GPixel/s) complicates that picture. The Quadro 3000M’s 75 W TDP is specified, while the AMD card’s power draw is not listed, which may be relevant for system integration planning.

For a user choosing strictly on benchmark scores, the AMD FirePro M4150 is the winner. For a user whose application is memory-bound and can utilize 2 GB of VRAM, the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M’s specification advantages make it a viable alternative, despite its lower compute score. The data supports a nuanced conclusion: AMD for compute, NVIDIA for memory capacity.