GPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M and AMD FirePro M4150 compare in overall benchmark performance?

A: The Quadro K2100M has an average benchmark score of 4151, while the FirePro M4150 scores 4013. This places the Quadro K2100M at the 25th percentile of all GPUs and the FirePro M4150 at the 24th percentile, making the performance difference narrow in the broader GPU landscape.

Q: What is the single head-to-head benchmark result between these two mobile workstation GPUs?

A: The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Quadro K2100M scores 4587 against the FirePro M4150’s 4013. This gives the Quadro K2100M a 14.3% advantage, with the data recording one win for the Quadro and zero for the FirePro.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth despite having less memory?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150. It pairs 1024 MB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus but only reaches 48.13 GB/s.

Q: Do both GPUs support modern graphics APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro K2100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the FirePro M4150 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. Note the Quadro’s DirectX support is listed as 12 (11_0), while the FirePro is 12 (11_1).

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences between the two chips?

A: The Quadro K2100M’s GK106S chip has 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die (11.5M transistors per mm²). The FirePro M4150’s Opal chip has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die (12.3M transistors per mm²). Both are built on TSMC’s 28 nm process.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture units?

A: The Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro leads in every compute unit category.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is built on the Kepler architecture with the GK106S chip, while the AMD FirePro M4150 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip. Both are manufactured by TSMC on the same 28 nm process, but the silicon differs dramatically in scale. The Quadro’s die measures 221 mm² and packs 2,540 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 11.5M per mm². The FirePro’s die is only 77 mm² with 950 million transistors, giving it a slightly higher density of 12.3M per mm². This means the Quadro has roughly 2.7 times the raw transistor count, but the FirePro is more compact per unit area.

The compute configuration reinforces the Quadro’s lead. It houses 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, against the FirePro’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These differences translate directly into peak rates: the Quadro achieves 768.4 GFLOPS FP32, 32.02 GTexel/s, and 8.004 GPixel/s, while the FirePro delivers 549.1 GFLOPS, 17.16 GTexel/s, and 5.720 GPixel/s. Clock behavior also diverges, the Quadro runs at a fixed 667 MHz base and boost, whereas the FirePro’s base and boost clocks are not specified in the data.

Memory architecture presents a notable contrast. The Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, but its memory clock is 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective), yielding 48.13 GB/s. The FirePro has 1 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, yet its memory clock is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), producing a higher 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. Thus, the FirePro compensates for its smaller frame buffer with faster data movement. The Quadro uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are MXM modules with portable-device-dependent display outputs. The Quadro has a TDP of 55 W; the FirePro’s TDP is not listed. The Quadro’s API support includes DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the FirePro offers DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. Here the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4587, while the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013. The delta is 14.3% in favor of the Quadro, which is a meaningful margin for GPUs in this performance class. In the context of the Quadro’s nearest rivals, this OpenCL score sits close to the AMD Radeon R5 M330 (average 4170, delta -0.4%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (average 4193, delta -1%). The Quadro also outperforms the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB (average 4093, delta 1.4%) and the Intel HD Graphics 630 (average 4075, delta 1.9%) in this specific test.

For the FirePro M4150, its 4013 OpenCL score positions it near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (average 4033, delta -0.5%) and slightly above the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (average 3977, delta 0.9%). It also edges out the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (average 3964, delta 1.2%) and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (average 3957, delta 1.4%). The 14.3% gap between the two contenders is larger than any delta seen in their respective nearest-rival lists, indicating that the Quadro K2100M holds a decisive edge in this workload rather than a marginal one.

The Quadro also has additional benchmark data points beyond OpenCL. It scores 3524 in Geekbench Metal and 4343 in Geekbench Vulkan. These results are not directly comparable to the FirePro, which only has an OpenCL score, but they suggest the Quadro’s Vulkan performance is slightly below its OpenCL score while Metal trails further. The average benchmark score for the Quadro is 4151, which pulls together its three results, while the FirePro’s average is simply its single OpenCL score of 4013. This means the Quadro’s average advantage (138 points, or roughly 3.4%) is smaller than its head-to-head OpenCL advantage, because the Metal and Vulkan results drag down its mean.

The Verdict

The data points clearly to the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M as the stronger performer. In the only directly comparable benchmark, it leads by 14.3%. Its average benchmark score is 4151 versus 4013, a 3.4% overall advantage. The Quadro also has a higher transistor count, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, and higher FP32, texture, and pixel rates. It has twice the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1024 MB). The FirePro M4150 does have a bandwidth advantage (64.00 GB/s versus 48.13 GB/s) and a slightly higher transistor density, but these do not overcome the Quadro’s compute advantages in the benchmark data.

For buyers choosing between these two mobile workstation GPUs, the Quadro K2100M is the default pick if raw compute performance matters. It wins the only head-to-head test, has a higher average score, and offers a larger frame buffer. The FirePro M4150 may be preferable only in scenarios where memory bandwidth is the bottleneck and where the smaller 1 GB frame buffer is sufficient. However, the benchmark evidence shows no workload where the FirePro beats the Quadro. The Quadro’s 14.3% OpenCL lead is substantial, and its extra benchmarks (Metal, Vulkan) provide broader API coverage that the FirePro lacks entirely. The FirePro’s 24th percentile ranking versus the Quadro’s 25th percentile reinforces that both are entry-level mobile workstation parts, but the Quadro sits at the top of that tier.

Specification Differences

| Field | NVIDIA Quadro K2100M | AMD FirePro M4150 |

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

| Architecture | Kepler | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GK106S | Opal |

| Transistors | 2,540 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 221 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 11.5M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 667 MHz | Not specified |

| Boost Clock | 667 MHz | Not specified |

| Memory Clock | 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 48.13 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 576 | 384 |

| TMUs | 48 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.004 GPixel/s | 5.720 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 32.02 GTexel/s | 17.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 768.4 GFLOPS | 549.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 55 W | Not specified |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.175 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2013-07-22 | 2013-10-15 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Fermi-M | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Quadro Maxwell-M | Radeon Pro Mobile |

| Average Benchmark Score | 4151 | 4013 |

| Percentile | 25 | 24 |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins in every benchmark category where comparison data exists. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4587 beats the FirePro’s 4013 by 14.3%. This is its most significant victory and reflects its superior compute pipeline, 576 shading units versus 384, 48 TMUs versus 24, and 16 ROPs versus 8. The Quadro also provides 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, which doubles the FirePro’s 1024 MB capacity, making it the better choice for workloads that exceed 1 GB of frame buffer usage. Its FP32 throughput of 768.4 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS gives it a raw compute edge for general-purpose GPU tasks. Additionally, the Quadro offers Vulkan 1.2.175 support, a slightly newer version than the FirePro’s 1.2.170, and it has a specified TDP of 55 W, which aids in thermal management planning for mobile workstations.

The AMD FirePro M4150 has fewer wins but still holds specific advantages. Its memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s is 33% higher than the Quadro’s 48.13 GB/s, which could benefit memory-bound workloads that rely on rapid data movement rather than compute throughput. Its transistor density of 12.3M per mm² is slightly higher than the Quadro’s 11.5M per mm², indicating a more efficient use of silicon area. The FirePro also supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a slightly newer feature level than the Quadro’s DirectX 12 (11_0). Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface may offer more flexible system integration in certain laptop designs compared to the Quadro’s MXM-A (3.0) bus. The FirePro’s smaller die size (77 mm² versus 221 mm²) and lower transistor count suggest it could be a more power-efficient part in principle, though no TDP is listed to confirm this. For applications where bandwidth is the primary constraint and memory capacity is sufficient at 1 GB, the FirePro’s architecture could theoretically perform competitively, but the benchmark data does not show any test where it actually overtakes the Quadro.