AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

# NVIDIA Quadro K3000M vs AMD FirePro M4150

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M and AMD FirePro M4150 are both end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs built on TSMC's 28 nm process, yet they target different segments of the professional mobile market. The K3000M is a large Kepler-based chip with significantly more silicon, while the M4150 is a compact GCN 1.0 part. Benchmark data shows the Quadro leading in the single available OpenCL test, but the margin is modest, and each card has structural advantages that suit different workloads. The K3000M scores 4241 in Geekbench OpenCL, placing it at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the M4150 scores 4013, sitting at the 24th percentile. That 5.7% gap in the head-to-head benchmark is the entire measurable performance difference, but the underlying specifications tell a richer story about where each GPU excels.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins the only direct benchmark comparison available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 4241 against the FirePro M4150's 4013. That 5.7% advantage is consistent with the K3000M's larger resource pool: it packs 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, compared to 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs on the M4150. For compute-heavy OpenCL workloads, the K3000M's 753.4 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput and 31.39 GTexel/s texture rate give it a clear edge that the benchmark numbers reflect.

The AMD FirePro M4150, however, wins on efficiency in a different sense. Its die size is only 77 mm² versus 294 mm² for the K3000M, and it uses 950 million transistors compared to 3,540 million. The M4150's transistor density is marginally higher at 12.3M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm², indicating a more compact design. The M4150 also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the K3000M's DirectX 12 (11_0), which could matter for applications that leverage newer API features. For systems where space and power envelope are primary concerns, the M4150's smaller footprint and lower resource count may be preferable, even if it trails in raw compute.

The M4150 also has a more modern bus interface, PCIe 3.0 x8, against the K3000M's MXM-B (3.0). While the K3000M uses a proprietary mobile module interface, the M4150's PCIe connection may integrate more easily into certain chassis designs. Neither card shows a win in the benchmark column for AMD, but the architectural trade-offs suggest the M4150 could be the better fit for lightweight, low-power mobile workstations where absolute performance is secondary.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The K3000M uses NVIDIA's Kepler architecture, built on the GK104 chip, which is a high-end desktop-derived design scaled for mobile. It features 3,540 million transistors spread across a 294 mm² die, yielding 12.0M transistors per mm². Kepler was designed for high throughput with many shader units, and the K3000M's 576 shading units reflect that orientation. Its pixel rate is 7.848 GPixel/s and texture rate is 31.39 GTexel/s, both substantially higher than the M4150's figures.

The M4150 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, implemented in the Opal chip. This is a much smaller design, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a slightly higher transistor density of 12.3M per mm². GCN was designed for compute-heavy workloads with a different scheduling model than Kepler. The M4150 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs, which limits its pixel throughput to 5.720 GPixel/s and texture rate to 17.16 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance is 549.1 GFLOPS, about 27% lower than the K3000M's 753.4 GFLOPS.

Memory architectures also diverge. The K3000M uses a 256-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5 running at 2.8 Gbps effective, delivering 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The M4150 has a 128-bit bus with 1 GB of GDDR5 at 4 Gbps effective, resulting in 64.00 GB/s. The K3000M's wider bus gives it a 40% bandwidth advantage, which is critical for large datasets in professional applications. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan, with the K3000M at Vulkan 1.2.175 and the M4150 at 1.2.170, but the M4150 has a slightly higher DirectX feature level.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where the K3000M scores 4241 against the M4150's 4013, a delta of 5.7% in favor of the NVIDIA card. This result aligns with the K3000M's superior compute resources. The K3000M's FP32 throughput of 753.4 GFLOPS is roughly 37% higher than the M4150's 549.1 GFLOPS, but the actual benchmark gap is much smaller, suggesting that the M4150's GCN architecture extracts more efficiency per FLOP in this workload. The K3000M's bandwidth advantage of 89.60 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s also contributes to its win, but the modest 5.7% margin indicates that the M4150 is not far behind in practice.

Looking at nearest rivals provides context. The K3000M's 4241 score places it just below the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268, -0.6% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282, -1% delta), while sitting above the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, 1.2% delta). The M4150's 4013 score is near the GeForce GT 755M (4033, -0.5% delta) and above the Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, 0.9% delta). Notably, the K3000M's closest rival is the GTX 1050 Ti, a much newer discrete GPU, while the M4150 sits close to the Quadro K2000 (3964, 1.2% delta), indicating both cards are competitive within their respective eras.

The single benchmark win for the K3000M is decisive but narrow. The data shows no wins for the M4150 in any head-to-head test, yet the performance gap is not overwhelming. For applications that are bandwidth-bound, the K3000M's 89.60 GB/s will be more impactful than the 5.7% OpenCL delta suggests, while compute-bound tasks may see a smaller difference.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two cards are stark. The K3000M has a 28 nm process with a 294 mm² die and 3,540 million transistors, while the M4150 uses the same 28 nm node but only 77 mm² and 950 million transistors. Transistor density is nearly identical, at 12.0M vs 12.3M per mm², but the total resource count differs massively. The K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, versus the M4150's 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 7.848 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 31.39 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 753.4 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS.

Memory differences are equally pronounced. The K3000M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth, while the M4150 has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s. Memory clock differs, with the K3000M at 2.8 Gbps effective and the M4150 at 4 Gbps effective, but the K3000M's wider bus compensates. The K3000M's TDP is listed at 75 W, while the M4150 has no TDP listed. Both use MXM Module slot width, but the bus interface differs: MXM-B (3.0) for the K3000M versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the M4150.

The K3000M has a higher DirectX feature level of 12 (11_0) against the M4150's 12 (11_1), but both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support is nearly identical, with versions 1.2.175 and 1.2.170 respectively. The K3000M was released on 2012-05-31, while the M4150 came later on 2013-10-15. The K3000M's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M, while the M4150's predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has higher FP32 performance at 753.4 GFLOPS, compared to the AMD FirePro M4150's 549.1 GFLOPS. This corresponds to a 5.7% higher Geekbench OpenCL score (4241 vs 4013).

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The K3000M offers 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth through a 256-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, while the M4150 provides 64.00 GB/s via a 128-bit bus with 1 GB of GDDR5. The K3000M's bandwidth is about 40% higher.

Q: What is the transistor density of each chip?

A: The K3000M has a transistor density of 12.0M per mm² (3,540 million transistors on 294 mm²), while the M4150 has 12.3M per mm² (950 million transistors on 77 mm²). The M4150 is slightly denser.

Q: Which GPU supports a higher DirectX feature level?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The M4150 has a marginally newer feature level.

Q: How does the K3000M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The K3000M's 4241 score is 1.2% above the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193), and it trails the Radeon Vega 3 (4268) by 0.6% and the GeForce GTX 460M (4282) by 1%.

Q: What is the release timeline difference?

A: The K3000M was released on 2012-05-31, while the M4150 came later on 2013-10-15, giving the AMD card roughly a year and a half of additional development time.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M in raw performance. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark with a 5.7% margin, and its specification sheet shows decisive advantages in shading units, texture units, ROPs, memory bandwidth, and FP32 throughput. For users running OpenCL-based professional applications that can leverage the K3000M's 576 shading units and 89.60 GB/s bandwidth, this card is the stronger choice. Its 2 GB memory capacity also provides more headroom for large datasets compared to the M4150's 1 GB.

However, the AMD FirePro M4150 should not be dismissed. Its smaller die (77 mm² vs 294 mm²) and lower transistor count (950 million vs 3,540 million) suggest a more power-efficient design, even though TDP is not listed for the M4150. The M4150's higher DirectX feature level (11_1 vs 11_0) and newer release date (2013-10-15 vs 2012-05-31) indicate it is a more modern design in some respects. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface may also be simpler to integrate into certain mobile platforms than the K3000M's MXM-B (3.0) module.

The choice between these two ultimately depends on workload priorities. If maximum compute throughput and memory bandwidth are required, the K3000M is the clear winner based on the benchmark data. If a compact, efficient GPU with a newer API feature set is sufficient, the M4150's lower resource footprint may be adequate, especially given that the 5.7% performance gap in OpenCL is not vast. The percentile rankings, 25th for the K3000M and 24th for the M4150, confirm that both cards occupy a similar tier in the overall GPU landscape, so the decision should hinge on specific application requirements rather than broad performance expectations.