AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA Quadro P1000 Comparison

The Verdict

The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 is the clear performance leader in this comparison. The recorded benchmark data shows a decisive advantage for the Pascal-based professional GPU across every measurable compute metric. The AMD FirePro M4150, an end-of-life mobile part from 2013, trails by a massive margin in raw OpenCL performance, and the P1000 also offers substantially more memory, higher bandwidth, and a more modern feature set.

For users seeking maximum compute throughput in professional applications, the Quadro P1000 is the only rational choice based on the data. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 13584 versus the FirePro M4150's 4013 represents a 70.5% deficit for the AMD part, meaning the P1000 delivers roughly 3.4 times the raw compute performance. The P1000 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro M4150 only reaches DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. For any workload that leverages modern graphics APIs, the P1000 is the superior option.

However, the FirePro M4150 is not without its niche. It is an MXM module, designed for portable or embedded systems where space and power are constrained. The P1000 is a single-slot PCIe card with a 150 mm length and a 47 W TDP. If the target system requires an MXM form factor, the FirePro M4150 is the only compatible choice in this pairing. The data does not provide any performance advantage for the AMD part, so the decision hinges entirely on physical compatibility rather than benchmark results.

In summary, the Quadro P1000 wins on every recorded performance metric, offers four times the memory capacity, and has a more modern architecture. The FirePro M4150 only makes sense in legacy MXM-based systems where the P1000 cannot physically be installed.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark results show a single recorded test, Geekbench OpenCL, and the NVIDIA Quadro P1000 wins that test outright. The P1000 scores 13584 against the FirePro M4150's 4013, a delta of 70.5% in favor of NVIDIA. There are no benchmark categories where the AMD part records a victory.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite available for the P1000, it also posts scores in Vulkan (7739), Passmark G3D (4512), Passmark G2D (589), and Passmark GPU Compute (1891). The FirePro M4150 has no recorded results in any of these tests, so the P1000 wins those categories by default in the database. The P1000 also demonstrates stronger DirectX performance across multiple API versions, with Passmark scores of 79 for DirectX 9, 31 for DirectX 11, 21 for DirectX 10, and 19 for DirectX 12.

The FirePro M4150's only distinguishing feature is its MXM form factor. The database lists its slot width as "MXM Module," which makes it suitable for laptops or compact industrial systems. The P1000 is a standard single-slot PCIe card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W. So, while the AMD part loses all performance comparisons, it wins on form factor flexibility for mobile or embedded deployments.

In terms of use cases, the data suggests the P1000 is the choice for any compute-intensive task such as rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference that relies on OpenCL or Vulkan. The FirePro M4150, with its 1 GB GDDR5 memory and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, is limited to lighter workloads or legacy software environments where the older GCN 1.0 architecture is sufficient.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different generations and process nodes. The AMD FirePro M4150 uses the Opal chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 uses the GP107 chip on the Pascal architecture, fabricated by Samsung on a 14 nm process. It contains 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, achieving a density of 25.0 million per square millimeter. The P1000's newer process node allows for more than triple the transistor count in a die that is only about 71% larger in area.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The FirePro M4150 has no base or boost clock listed in the database, but its memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The P1000 has a base clock of 1266 MHz and a boost clock of 1480 MHz, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The P1000's higher clock rates contribute directly to its performance lead.

Memory configuration is another major divergence. The FirePro M4150 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, but with higher memory clocks, it reaches 80.19 GB/s. That is a 25% bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA card, combined with four times the capacity.

Compute resources favor the P1000 heavily. The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The P1000 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The P1000's pixel rate is 47.36 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s for the AMD part, a difference of over 8x. Texture rate is 59.20 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s, a 3.4x advantage. FP32 throughput is 1.894 TFLOPS for the P1000 versus 549.1 GFLOPS for the FirePro M4150, again a 3.4x lead. The P1000 also lists FP16 performance at 29.60 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the FirePro M4150 has no FP16 data.

The P1000 supports a newer DirectX version (12_1 vs 11_1), same OpenGL 4.6, and a more recent Vulkan version (1.4 vs 1.2.170). The bus interface also differs: the FirePro M4150 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the P1000 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs for the P1000 are four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, while the FirePro M4150's outputs are listed as "portable device dependent," reflecting its MXM nature.

The P1000 has a TDP of 47 W and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The FirePro M4150's TDP is not listed. The P1000 measures 150 mm in length and 69 mm in height. The FirePro M4150 has no physical dimensions recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 scores 13584 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013. The P1000 leads by 70.5%, meaning the FirePro M4150 delivers only about 29.5% of the P1000's performance in this test.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus but with 80.19 GB/s bandwidth. The P1000 offers four times the capacity and roughly 25% more bandwidth.

Q: Are these cards compatible with the same systems?

A: No. The FirePro M4150 is an MXM module, designed for portable devices with proprietary slots. The Quadro P1000 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with a 150 mm length, 69 mm height, and no power connectors. They are physically incompatible with each other's typical mounting systems.

Q: What are the architectural differences between the two?

A: The FirePro M4150 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process with 950 million transistors. The Quadro P1000 uses NVIDIA's Pascal architecture on a 14 nm Samsung process with 3,300 million transistors. The P1000 has 640 shading units versus 384, and 32 ROPs versus 8.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The Quadro P1000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The P1000 has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Q: Does the FirePro M4150 win any benchmark categories?

A: In the recorded head-to-head data, the FirePro M4150 wins zero benchmarks. The Quadro P1000 wins the single Geekbench OpenCL test, and it also has additional recorded scores in Vulkan and Passmark tests that the AMD part lacks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA Quadro P1000 records a score of 13584, while the AMD FirePro M4150 records 4013. The delta percentage is 70.5% in favor of the P1000. This is a dominant victory, indicating that the P1000 is roughly 3.4 times faster in OpenCL compute workloads. For perspective, the FirePro M4150's nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033, a 0.5% difference), the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, 0.9%), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964, 1.2%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, 1.4%). The FirePro M4150 sits in a cluster of GPUs around the 4000-point mark, which places it in the 24th percentile of all GPUs.

The Quadro P1000's average benchmark score across all its recorded tests is 3163, which is lower than its OpenCL score because it also includes several Passmark tests with lower values (e.g., DirectX 9 at 79, DirectX 11 at 31, DirectX 10 at 21, DirectX 12 at 19, and G2D at 589). Its nearest rivals include the Intel Arc Pro B60 (3182, a 0.6% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 (3210, 1.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5080 SUPER (3075, 2.9% higher for the P1000), and the NVIDIA GeForce 920M (3287, 3.8% higher for the rival). The P1000 sits in the 20th percentile of all GPUs, which is slightly below the FirePro M4150's 24th percentile, but this is because the P1000's average is dragged down by its low DirectX and G2D scores, not because it is a weaker compute part.

In the broader benchmark suite, the P1000 shows strong Vulkan performance with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 7739. It also posts a Passmark G3D score of 4512 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 1891. The FirePro M4150 has no recorded results for these tests, so the P1000 wins them by default. The P1000's Passmark DirectX scores are relatively low (79 for DirectX 9, 31 for DirectX 11, 21 for DirectX 10, 19 for DirectX 12), but these are still recorded values that the FirePro M4150 cannot match because no such data exists for the AMD card.

The performance gap is consistent with the architectural differences. The P1000 has 640 shading units versus 384, a 1.67x increase. It has 40 TMUs versus 24, a 1.67x increase. It has 32 ROPs versus 8, a 4x increase. Its FP32 throughput is 1.894 TFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS, a 3.45x increase. Its pixel rate is 47.36 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, an 8.28x increase. Its texture rate is 59.20 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s, a 3.45x increase. Memory bandwidth is 80.19 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, a 1.25x increase. These raw specifications align closely with the observed OpenCL score difference of 3.4x, confirming that the P1000's advantage is consistent across compute and graphics throughput.

The P1000 also has a higher boost clock of 1480 MHz compared to the FirePro M4150's unspecified clocks, and its memory runs at 5 Gbps effective versus 4 Gbps. The combination of more cores, higher clocks, and more memory bandwidth gives the P1000 a comprehensive lead. The FirePro M4150's only advantages are its smaller die size (77 mm² vs 132 mm²) and lower transistor count (950 million vs 3,300 million), which are irrelevant to performance and only reflect its older, less complex design.

In summary, the head-to-head data shows a single benchmark with a 70.5% lead for the P1000, and the specification comparison supports that result across every relevant metric. The FirePro M4150 is a legacy part that cannot compete on performance, and its only practical use case is in systems that require an MXM module.