AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single direct benchmark comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro P400 and the AMD FirePro M4150, using Geekbench OpenCL as the test. In that test, the Quadro P400 scores 4249 points, while the FirePro M4150 scores 4013 points. The recorded delta is 5.9% in favor of the Quadro P400, giving NVIDIA a 1-0 win tally in head-to-head tests. This is not a dramatic gap, but it is a consistent one across the single measured workload. The Quadro P400 also has a Vulkan score of 5119, which the FirePro M4150 lacks entirely, indicating a capability difference in modern compute APIs, though no direct comparison exists for that test.

Looking at the broader database context, the Quadro P400 sits at the 27th percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro M4150 sits at the 24th percentile. That three-percentile gap aligns with the OpenCL result: the Quadro is slightly better positioned in the overall performance distribution. The average benchmark score for the Quadro P400 is 4684, while the FirePro M4150 averages 4013. That is a 16.7% difference in aggregate scores, but the head-to-head delta is only 5.9%, so the gap narrows when both are measured under identical conditions.

The nearest rivals in the database provide additional context. The Quadro P400's closest competitors include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and AMD Radeon R5 M320, both with an average score of 4657, which puts them 0.6% behind the Quadro. The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX scores 4727, 0.9% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 4628, 1.2% behind. For the FirePro M4150, the nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M at 4033, 0.5% ahead, followed by the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 at 3977, 0.9% behind, the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 at 3964, 1.2% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M at 3957, 1.4% behind. These clusters show that both cards are in the same performance neighborhood, but the Quadro P400 has a slightly higher ceiling and a more modern feature set.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P400 wins the only direct benchmark, and it wins on raw compute throughput. Its FP32 output is 641.0 GFLOPS, compared to 549.1 GFLOPS for the FirePro M4150, a 16.7% advantage in peak single-precision math. That translates directly into the OpenCL result, where the Quadro leads by 5.9%. The Quadro also has a higher pixel rate, 20.03 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, and a higher texture rate, 20.03 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s. The pixel rate difference is especially large: the Quadro is roughly 3.5 times faster at filling pixels, which matters for resolution scaling and anti-aliasing workloads.

The FirePro M4150 does have one notable advantage: memory bandwidth. It uses a 128-bit bus with a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, while the Quadro P400 uses a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s. That means the FirePro can move data at twice the rate, which can help in memory-bound tasks like large texture streaming or certain compute kernels. However, the FirePro's memory capacity is only 1024 MB, half of the Quadro's 2 GB, so the bandwidth advantage comes with a capacity penalty. The FirePro also has more shading units, 384 versus 256, and more texture mapping units, 24 versus 16, but fewer ROPs, 8 versus 16. The extra shading units do not translate into a compute win because the Quadro's Pascal architecture extracts more performance per unit.

For use cases, the Quadro P400 is the better choice for OpenCL compute workloads, pixel-heavy rendering, and any task that benefits from modern API support. The FirePro M4150 is better suited for memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks where its 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth can be leveraged, but its smaller frame buffer and older architecture limit its overall appeal.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 is built on the Pascal architecture, using the GP107 chip fabricated on a 14 nm process from Samsung. The AMD FirePro M4150 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, based on the Opal chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process from TSMC. The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 28 nm, which explains the transistor density gap. The Quadro packs 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die, giving a density of 25.0M transistors per square millimeter. The FirePro has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3M per square millimeter. The Quadro has more than three times the transistor count, but its die is only about 1.7 times larger, reflecting the denser manufacturing process.

The Quadro P400 is a desktop card with a single-slot form factor, a 150 mm length, a 69 mm height, and no power connectors. The FirePro M4150 is an MXM module, designed for portable devices, with no fixed dimensions recorded. The Quadro uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x8. That halves the available bus bandwidth for the AMD card, which is a bottleneck for data transfers to and from the host system. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Vulkan version gap is notable: 1.4 versus 1.2.170, indicating newer API features on the NVIDIA side.

The Quadro P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The AMD card has more compute units and texture units, but half the ROPs, which cripples its pixel output. The Quadro's FP16 performance is listed as 10.02 GFLOPS, with a 1:64 ratio to FP32, while the FirePro has no FP16 support recorded. That means the Quadro can handle half-precision math, albeit slowly, while the AMD card cannot at all.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specifications. The Quadro P400 has a base clock of 1228 MHz and a boost clock of 1252 MHz, while the FirePro M4150 has no recorded base or boost clocks. The memory clocks are nearly identical: 1002 MHz for the Quadro and 1000 MHz for the FirePro, both with an effective data rate of 4 Gbps. Memory size differs: 2 GB for the Quadro versus 1024 MB for the FirePro. Memory type is GDDR5 for both, but bus width differs: 64 bit for the Quadro versus 128 bit for the FirePro. This results in bandwidth of 32.06 GB/s for the Quadro and 64.00 GB/s for the FirePro.

The Quadro P400 has a TDP of 30 W and a suggested power supply of 200 W, while the FirePro M4150 has no TDP or PSU recommendation recorded. The Quadro is single-slot with no power connectors; the FirePro is an MXM module with no power connector data. Display outputs differ: the Quadro has 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the FirePro is listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning its outputs depend on the host laptop. Release dates differ: the Quadro launched on 2017-02-06, while the FirePro launched on 2013-10-15, a gap of over three years. Both are end-of-life products, with the Quadro succeeding Quadro Maxwell and preceding Quadro Volta, and the FirePro succeeding FirePro Mobility and preceding Radeon Pro Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 has an average benchmark score of 4684, while the AMD FirePro M4150 averages 4013, a difference of 16.7% in favor of the Quadro.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro M4150 have any advantage over the Quadro P400?

A: Yes, the FirePro M4150 has twice the memory bandwidth, 64.00 GB/s versus 32.06 GB/s, due to its 128-bit bus compared to the Quadro's 64-bit bus. It also has more shading units, 384 versus 256, and more TMUs, 24 versus 16.

Q: What is the DirectX support difference?

A: The Quadro P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The 12_1 feature level is higher, meaning the Quadro supports more advanced rendering features.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro P400 has a pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s, while the FirePro M4150 has a pixel rate of 5.720 GPixel/s, making the Quadro about 3.5 times faster at pixel filling.

Q: Is the FirePro M4150 a desktop or mobile card?

A: The FirePro M4150 is an MXM module, designed for portable devices, with display outputs dependent on the host laptop. The Quadro P400 is a single-slot desktop card with 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs.

Q: Does the Quadro P400 support Vulkan 1.4?

A: Yes, the Quadro P400 supports Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro M4150 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, a lower version of the API.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is the stronger card. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 5.9%, has a higher average benchmark score by 16.7%, sits at a higher percentile (27th versus 24th), and has a significantly higher pixel rate (20.03 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s). It also has double the memory capacity, 2 GB versus 1024 MB, and a newer architecture on a smaller process node, 14 nm versus 28 nm. For any task that involves OpenCL compute, pixel-heavy rendering, or modern API support, the Quadro P400 is the better choice.

The AMD FirePro M4150 is not without merit. Its 128-bit memory bus provides 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, exactly double the Quadro's 32.06 GB/s. That is a real advantage for memory-bound workloads, and its 384 shading units give it a higher theoretical compute unit count. However, this does not translate into a win in the recorded benchmark, and its lower ROP count (8 versus 16) and half the memory capacity undermine its practical usefulness. The FirePro also has a much older release date, 2013 versus 2017, and no recorded Vulkan score, meaning it likely lacks the same level of modern API readiness.

For a builder choosing between these two end-of-life products, the Quadro P400 is the default recommendation. It offers better compute performance, better pixel throughput, more memory, and a more modern feature set. The FirePro M4150 should only be considered if memory bandwidth is the absolute priority and the host system requires an MXM module. In every other scenario, the database points squarely to the Quadro P400.