AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data is unusually lopsided. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins the only shared head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, by a massive margin. The AMD FirePro M4150 does not win any test in the database. This creates a clear use-case split: the Quadro M3000M is the compute-oriented part, while the FirePro M4150 occupies a lower performance tier entirely.

Looking at the broader benchmark suites, the Quadro M3000M has scores across a wide range of tests. Its Passmark G3D score of 5543 places it well above its average benchmark score of 4621, suggesting strong DirectX-era performance. The FirePro M4150 has only one recorded benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL score of 4013. That single data point means the M4150's capabilities outside of compute are not directly measured in this database. The data implies the M3000M is the part to choose for anyone needing OpenCL compute throughput, while the M4150 would only make sense in a system where the M3000M is unavailable or where the workload is exceptionally light.

The percentile ranking reinforces this gap. The M3000M sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the M4150 sits at the 24th percentile. These are close in relative standing, but the raw scores tell a different story. The M3000M's average benchmark score of 4621 is 15.2% higher than the M4150's 4013. The M3000M also has a much larger set of benchmark results, which suggests it has been tested more thoroughly and its performance profile is better understood.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages entirely. The Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip built on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the FirePro M4150 uses the Opal chip built on GCN 1.0. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The M3000M integrates 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The M4150 is far smaller, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.3M per mm². The M3000M's die is over five times larger physically and contains over five times as many transistors. This scale difference explains much of the performance gap.

The memory subsystems diverge substantially. The M3000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, producing 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The M4150 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, producing 64.00 GB/s. That is a 2.5x bandwidth advantage for the M3000M. The M3000M also carries more execution resources: 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The M4150 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Clock behavior differs too. The M3000M has explicit base and boost clocks of 823 MHz and 924 MHz respectively. The M4150 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The M3000M's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). This clock advantage compounds with the wider bus and higher unit counts.

API support is another distinguishing factor. The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The M3000M has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version. Both use a PCIe 3.0 interface, but the M3000M uses x16 while the M4150 uses x8. The M3000M also has a recorded TDP of 75 W, while the M4150's TDP is not listed. Both are MXM modules with display outputs described as portable device dependent.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M than the AMD FirePro M4150 in OpenCL compute?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the M3000M scores 16646 against the M4150's 4013. That is a 314.8% advantage for the M3000M.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The M3000M has 160.4 GB/s from its 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The M4150 has 64.00 GB/s from its 1024 MB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but at different feature levels. The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The M3000M contains 5,200 million transistors, while the M4150 contains 950 million. The M3000M's die is 398 mm² compared to the M4150's 77 mm².

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The M3000M has 1024 shading units. The M4150 has 384 shading units, which is less than half the M3000M's count.

Q: Are both GPUs end-of-life products?

A: Yes. The database marks both the M3000M and the M4150 as end-of-life production status.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The M3000M uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the M4150 uses the Opal chip with GCN 1.0 architecture. Both use 28 nm TSMC manufacturing, but the M3000M has 5,200 million transistors versus 950 million for the M4150. Die size is 398 mm² versus 77 mm².

Clock speeds differ significantly. The M3000M has a base clock of 823 MHz and a boost clock of 924 MHz. The M4150 has no recorded base or boost clock. Memory clocks are 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for the M3000M and 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the M4150.

Memory capacity is 4 GB versus 1024 MB. Bus width is 256 bit versus 128 bit. Bandwidth is 160.4 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s. The M3000M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The M4150 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1.892 TFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS.

The M3000M has a TDP of 75 W and no power connectors. The M4150 has no TDP or power connector data. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the M3000M and PCIe 3.0 x8 for the M4150. API support: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6 for both, Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170. Release dates differ: the M3000M launched in 2015-08-17, the M4150 in 2013-10-15. The M3000M's predecessors and successors are Quadro Kepler-M and Quadro Pascal-M. The M4150's are FirePro Mobility and Radeon Pro Mobile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head comparison: Geekbench OpenCL. The M3000M scores 16646, and the M4150 scores 4013. The delta is 314.8% in favor of the M3000M. This is not a marginal victory; it is a dominant one. The M3000M delivers more than four times the OpenCL compute score of the M4150.

The M3000M's other benchmark results add context. Its Passmark G3D score is 5543, and its Passmark GPU Compute score is 2139. Its Geekbench Vulkan score is 16668, nearly identical to its OpenCL score. The M4150 has no Vulkan result and no Passmark results in the database. The M3000M also records Passmark DirectX scores: 98 in DirectX 9, 42 in DirectX 11, 26 in DirectX 10, and 23 in DirectX 12. These lower DirectX scores relative to G3D suggest the M3000M's strength lies in modern compute workloads rather than legacy API rasterization.

Nearest rival comparisons further contextualize the M3000M. Its average benchmark score of 4621 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, delta -0.1%), the AMD Radeon R5 M320 (4657, delta -0.8%), and the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4657, delta -0.8%). It is 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577). The M4150's nearest rivals are all lower-tier parts: NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033, delta -0.5%), AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, delta 0.9%), NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964, delta 1.2%), and NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, delta 1.4%). The M4150's average score of 4013 places it just above the Quadro K2000 and GeForce 830M, but well below the GT 755M's 4033.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is the superior part in every measured dimension. Its OpenCL score is 314.8% higher, its memory bandwidth is 2.5x greater, and its shading unit count is 2.67x higher. The M3000M also has more VRAM, a wider bus, higher pixel and texture rates, and more FP32 compute throughput. It supports a newer DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version. It has a defined TDP of 75 W, which the M4150 lacks.

The M4150's only advantage is its smaller size and lower transistor count, which could imply lower power draw, but the database records no TDP for it. The M4150 was released earlier (2013-10-15 versus 2015-08-17), so it represents an older generation of AMD mobile graphics. Its GCN 1.0 architecture is two generations behind the M3000M's Maxwell 2.0 in terms of feature support and efficiency.

For a mobile workstation, the M3000M is the clear choice from this data. It offers 4 GB of VRAM, which is four times the M4150's 1024 MB. Its 160.4 GB/s bandwidth enables larger textures and more complex scenes. Its 1.892 TFLOPS of FP32 compute allows for meaningful GPU compute acceleration. The M4150, with 549.1 GFLOPS and 64.00 GB/s, would struggle with anything beyond basic 2D or light 3D workloads.

The percentile rankings are close (27th versus 24th), but this reflects the overall GPU landscape rather than the direct comparison. Within this head-to-head, the M3000M wins the only shared test and has a much richer benchmark profile. The M4150 is an end-of-life part with a single recorded score and no wins. Anyone choosing between these two in the database should take the M3000M without hesitation. The M4150's only justification would be a system that physically requires its smaller footprint, but even then, the performance gap is too large to ignore.