GPU Comparison

The AMD FirePro M4150 and NVIDIA Quadro K2000D are both end-of-life professional mobile and desktop graphics solutions, respectively, built on a 28 nm TSMC process. While they target different form factors, their benchmark scores place them in a similar performance tier, making for an interesting comparison of architectural philosophies from AMD and NVIDIA during the same era. The data available offers a single direct benchmark comparison, but the underlying specifications reveal significant differences in how each card was designed to achieve its performance level.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark result in the data is from the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D scores 3919 points. This gives the AMD card a 2.4% lead, making it the winner in this specific head-to-head comparison. While a 2.4% difference is relatively small, it is enough to place the FirePro M4150 slightly ahead in the raw compute metric measured by this test.

Looking at the broader context from the `nearestRivals` data, the FirePro M4150's score of 4013 places it just 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033) and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977). This suggests the FirePro M4150 is performing in a very competitive band, with its closest rivals all within a 2% margin of its score. Similarly, the Quadro K2000D's score of 3919 is only 0.3% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (3930) and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883), indicating it too is tightly grouped with its nearest competitors.

The performance parity between these two cards is striking when considering the significant architectural differences outlined in the specifications. The fact that the FirePro M4150, with a smaller die and fewer transistors, manages to edge out the K2000D in this compute test suggests that AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture was efficient in raw compute throughput at the time. However, the single-test dataset limits the scope of this conclusion; it is a snapshot of one type of workload (OpenCL compute) and does not represent a full picture of real-world professional application performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score of 4013, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D's score of 3919. This represents a 2.4% performance advantage for the AMD card in this specific test.

Q: How does the memory configuration of the two cards compare?

A: Both cards utilize GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus width, resulting in an identical memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. However, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has a larger memory capacity of 2 GB, while the AMD FirePro M4150 has 1 GB.

Q: What are the key differences in the physical form factor?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 is an MXM Module, designed for portable devices, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is a Single-slot card with a length of 202 mm (8 inches) and a height of 111 mm (4.4 inches). The K2000D also has display outputs of 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, whereas the FirePro M4150's outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent."

Q: Which card has a higher transistor count and how does that affect its density?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has a higher transistor count of 1,270 million, compared to the AMD FirePro M4150's 950 million. Despite having more transistors, the K2000D's transistor density is lower at 10.8M / mm², versus the FirePro M4150's 12.3M / mm², due to its larger die size of 118 mm² compared to 77 mm².

Q: Are there differences in the supported API versions?

A: Yes, there are minor differences. The AMD FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel and texture fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has higher fill rates, with a pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s. The AMD FirePro M4150 has a pixel rate of 5.720 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 17.16 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental difference between these two GPUs lies in their architectures. The AMD FirePro M4150 is based on the GCN 1.0 architecture (chip codename "Opal"), while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D uses the Kepler architecture (chip "GK107"). This is a clash of two distinct design philosophies from the same era.

In terms of compute resources, both cards have 384 shading units. However, the NVIDIA card has significantly more texture mapping units (TMUs) and render output units (ROPs). The K2000D has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, compared to the FirePro M4150's 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. This difference directly explains the K2000D's higher pixel and texture fill rates. The K2000D's advantage in these fixed-function units suggests it was designed with more traditional rasterization-heavy workloads in mind, which often rely on fill rate.

The memory subsystem is another point of architectural difference. While both use a 128-bit bus and have the same 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, the K2000D has double the memory capacity (2 GB vs. 1 GB). The larger framebuffer is a key architectural advantage for the NVIDIA card, as it allows for larger textures and datasets to be held on-card, potentially reducing the need to access system memory in complex professional scenes.

The FirePro M4150's architecture, GCN 1.0, was AMD's first unified shader architecture designed with compute in mind. This is reflected in its ability to achieve a competitive Geekbench OpenCL score with fewer TMUs and ROPs. The data suggests that the FirePro M4150's compute advantage in OpenCL comes from a more efficient arrangement of its shading units for parallel compute tasks, whereas the K2000D's Kepler architecture focuses more on geometry and fill rate performance. The K2000D's die size is 118 mm², which is 53% larger physically than the FirePro M4150's 77 mm² die, housing 1,270 million transistors versus 950 million.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights the key specification differences between the two cards, based solely on the provided data:

| Specification | AMD FirePro M4150 | NVIDIA Quadro K2000D |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | Opal | GK107 |

| 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 Performance | 549.1 GFLOPS | 732.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 51 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

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

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

| Dimensions | Not specified | 202 mm x 111 mm |

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

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

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

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 599 USD |

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a nuanced picture. The AMD FirePro M4150 is the winner of the sole head-to-head OpenCL benchmark, with a 2.4% higher score at 4013 versus 3919. Its design as a mobile MXM module with a focus on compute efficiency allows it to punch above its weight in this test. The data implies that for raw compute tasks as measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro M4150 is the better performer.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D is a more substantial piece of hardware in almost every other quantitative measure. It has double the memory (2 GB vs. 1 GB), more TMUs and ROPs, significantly higher pixel and texture fill rates, and higher raw FP32 performance (732.7 GFLOPS vs. 549.1 GFLOPS). These specifications point to a card that is designed for a broader range of professional graphics workloads, particularly those that are fill-rate limited or require larger amounts of video memory.

The data suggests that the Geekbench OpenCL score is not a comprehensive measure of a professional GPU's capability. While the FirePro M4150 wins in this specific compute test, the K2000D's superior specifications in other areas indicate it is likely the more versatile card for diverse professional applications. The launch MSRP of the K2000D was 599 USD, and its end-of-life status means it occupies a legacy desktop workstation slot. The FirePro M4150, by contrast, is a mobile solution, making them suitable for entirely different physical contexts.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4150 wins in the specific area of OpenCL compute performance, as evidenced by its 2.4% higher Geekbench score. This suggests a potential advantage in workloads that are heavily parallel and compute-bound, where the efficiency of its GCN 1.0 architecture can be leveraged. Its smaller die size and lower transistor count also imply a more power-efficient design per unit of compute performance, though TDP data is not available for the FirePro to confirm this directly. For a mobile workstation where space and power are at a premium, the FirePro M4150's performance-per-specification ratio is notable.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D wins in the specification-driven categories that typically matter for professional graphics. Its 2 GB of memory is a significant advantage for handling larger assets, and its higher pixel and texture rates suggest it can process geometry and textures faster. The K2000D also wins on raw FP32 throughput, being 33% higher than the FirePro M4150 (732.7 vs. 549.1 GFLOPS). These factors point to the K2000D being the stronger choice for tasks like 3D modeling, CAD, and other applications that are heavily reliant on fill rate, geometry throughput, and large framebuffers, even if its OpenCL score is slightly lower. Its desktop form factor, with standard display outputs, also makes it the clear choice for a traditional fixed workstation setup.