AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available head-to-head comparison places the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 ahead of the AMD FirePro M4150 in Geekbench OpenCL performance. The Quadro K2000 scores 4071 against the FirePro M4150's 4013, a delta of -1.4% from the AMD part's perspective. This is a narrow margin — roughly the difference between two GPUs that sit adjacent in the overall ranking. Both cards occupy the 24th percentile among all GPUs, meaning they land at the same position in the distribution of benchmarked hardware.

Context from the nearest-rival data reinforces how close these two are. The FirePro M4150's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M at 4033, a mere 0.5% higher, while the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 trails at 3977, just 0.9% below. The Quadro K2000's own nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce 830M at 3957 (0.2% lower) and the AMD Radeon R5 M420 at 3956 (0.2% lower). In other words, both cards sit within a band of roughly 1.4% of each other, and each is surrounded by a cluster of competitors separated by fractions of a percentage point. The data suggests these are effectively peer-level performers in compute workloads, with the Quadro's 1.2% advantage over the FirePro in average score (3964 vs 4013 — note the direction) being within run-to-run variance territory.

The Quadro K2000 also shows versatility in API-specific benchmarks that the FirePro M4150 lacks. Beyond OpenCL, the Quadro records a Geekbench Metal score of 3630 and a Vulkan score of 4191. The FirePro M4150 has no corresponding Metal or Vulkan results in the data, limiting direct comparison to the OpenCL test alone. This absence is notable: the Quadro demonstrates cross-API capability, while the FirePro's benchmark footprint is narrower.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4071 versus the AMD FirePro M4150's 4013, a 1.4% margin in the Quadro's favor.

Q: How does each card compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The FirePro M4150's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033, 0.5% higher), followed by the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, 0.9% lower). The Quadro K2000's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, 0.2% lower), with the AMD Radeon R5 M420 (3956, 0.2% lower) close behind.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 has an average benchmark score of 4013, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 averages 3964. Despite the Quadro winning the head-to-head OpenCL test, its average across all benchmarks is 1.2% lower than the FirePro's.

Q: Which card supports more graphics APIs?

A: The Quadro K2000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, with benchmark results for Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan. The FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, but has only an OpenCL benchmark result in the data.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: Both cards use GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro M4150 has 1024 MB, while the Quadro K2000 has 2 GB. Both run memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Q: How do the compute resources differ between the two?

A: Both have 384 shading units. The FirePro M4150 has 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs, while the Quadro K2000 has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. The Quadro also delivers higher peak rates: 7.632 GPixel/s and 30.53 GTexel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s and 17.16 GTexel/s.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different architectures from their respective manufacturers. The AMD FirePro M4150 uses the Opal chip built on Graphics Core Next 1.0 (GCN 1.0), while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 uses the GK107 chip based on the Kepler architecture. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the silicon details diverge significantly.

The Quadro K2000 packs 1,270 million transistors into a die size of 118 mm², yielding a transistor density of 10.8M per mm². The FirePro M4150 is considerably smaller in both absolute and relative terms: 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, producing a higher density of 12.3M per mm². This means AMD achieved tighter packing of transistors, though the NVIDIA chip has 33.7% more total transistors to work with.

The compute pipelines differ in their resource allocation. Both cards feature 384 shading units, but the Quadro K2000 doubles the TMU count (32 versus 24) and ROP count (16 versus 8). These additional fixed-function units translate directly into higher peak throughput: the Quadro delivers 30.53 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s for texture fill, and 7.632 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s for pixel fill. The FP32 compute rating also favors the Quadro at 732.7 GFLOPS compared to 549.1 GFLOPS — a 33.4% advantage that does not appear in the OpenCL benchmark scores, suggesting memory bandwidth or driver overhead may be limiting factors in real-world compute tests.

Memory configurations are identical in type and bus width: GDDR5 on a 128-bit interface at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s for both. The critical difference is capacity: the Quadro ships with 2 GB versus the FirePro's 1 GB. This doubling of memory could matter for workloads that exceed the 1 GB frame buffer, though the bandwidth ceiling remains the same.

The bus interfaces differ as well. The FirePro M4150 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro K2000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The newer PCIe 3.0 standard on the AMD part offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the x8 width limits total throughput; the Quadro's older standard with more lanes may provide comparable or better host transfer rates in practice.

Thermal and physical characteristics also separate the two. The Quadro K2000 has a rated TDP of 51 W and fits a single-slot form factor measuring 202 mm by 111 mm. The FirePro M4150 uses an MXM Module form factor with no TDP listed, indicating its power draw is unspecified in the data. The Quadro requires no external power connectors and suggests a 250 W PSU, while the FirePro's power requirements are not documented.

Both cards have reached end-of-life status. The FirePro M4150 launched on 2013-10-15, succeeding FirePro Mobility and preceding Radeon Pro Mobile. The Quadro K2000 launched earlier on 2013-02-28, succeeding Quadro Fermi and preceding Quadro Maxwell. The display outputs also differ: the Quadro provides 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the FirePro's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile MXM design.

# The Verdict

The data paints a picture of two closely matched professional mobile-class GPUs with distinct strengths. For raw compute in the OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 holds a narrow 1.4% edge over the AMD FirePro M4150. The Quadro also offers substantial architectural advantages that do not translate into the benchmark result: 2 GB versus 1 GB of memory, double the ROPs and TMUs, and 33.4% higher peak FP32 throughput. These specifications suggest the Quadro may pull ahead in workloads that exercise texture fill, pixel throughput, or memory capacity beyond 1 GB — scenarios the OpenCL test does not capture.

The FirePro M4150 counters with a more transistor-dense design (12.3M per mm² versus 10.8M) and newer PCIe 3.0 x8 connectivity. Its average benchmark score of 4013 actually exceeds the Quadro's 3964 average, indicating that across whatever benchmarks exist for each card, the AMD part holds a 1.2% lead. This apparent contradiction — losing the head-to-head but winning the average — stems from the Quadro's additional Metal and Vulkan results, which score 3630 and 4191 respectively, pulling its average down.

The card to choose depends on the workload profile. Users who need greater memory capacity, higher pixel and texture fill rates, and confirmed Vulkan/Metal support should favor the Quadro K2000. Its 2 GB frame buffer and doubled ROP count make it the more capable choice for display-heavy or large-texture workloads. The FirePro M4150's advantages are less tangible in the available data: a 0.9% higher transistor density and a newer PCIe revision, neither of which manifests as a benchmark win. Its single OpenCL score of 4013 sits just 1.4% below the Quadro's — a margin that could easily be reversed with driver updates or different test conditions.

Both cards sit at the 24th percentile among all GPUs, confirming their status as entry-to-mid-level professional parts from the same era. The Quadro's launch MSRP of 599 USD (stated once here) and its superior specifications make it the more compelling option on paper, while the FirePro's lower transistor count and smaller die suggest AMD targeted lower production costs. For compute performance measured strictly by the available OpenCL data, the Quadro wins. For broader capability across graphics APIs and memory-intensive workloads, the specifications also favor the Quadro. The FirePro M4150's only measurable advantages are its higher transistor density and slightly better average benchmark score, neither of which overcomes the Quadro's architectural and memory capacity lead.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro M4150 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000 |

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

| Chip | Opal | GK107 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Generation | FirePro Mobile (Mx100) | Quadro Kepler (Kx000) |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,270 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 118 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 10.8M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.720 GPixel/s | 7.632 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.16 GTexel/s | 30.53 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 549.1 GFLOPS | 732.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 51 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 202 mm x 111 mm |

| Release Date | 2013-10-15 | 2013-02-28 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | 599 USD |

The two cards share identical memory type (GDDR5), bus width (128 bit), bandwidth (64.00 GB/s), memory clock (1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective), shading units (384), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), OpenGL version (4.6), and production status (end-of-life).