AMD FirePro M6100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4200 Comparison

The AMD FirePro M6100 and NVIDIA Quadro K4200 are both end-of-life professional workstation GPUs from 2014, but they target fundamentally different physical formats and performance profiles. In the single benchmark where they are directly compared, the AMD FirePro M6100 takes a decisive victory, but the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 counters with a broader feature set and higher memory capacity. The data shows a clear split: the FirePro M6100 is the raw compute leader in this matchup, while the Quadro K4200 offers a larger frame buffer and more display connectivity.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is unambiguous. The AMD FirePro M6100 scores 13,354 points, which is 8.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K4200’s 12,313 points. This is a significant margin for a single compute workload, indicating that the FirePro M6100 holds a genuine advantage in OpenCL compute tasks. The score difference is not marginal; it is a clear, measurable win for the AMD part.

Looking beyond the direct matchup, the FirePro M6100 sits at the 54th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro K4200 sits at the 52nd percentile. This two-point gap in percentile ranking reinforces the OpenCL result, suggesting the FirePro M6100 is slightly better positioned in the overall performance distribution. The FirePro M6100’s average benchmark score is 13,354, while the Quadro K4200’s average across its two recorded benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan) is 12,398. That average is pulled down by the Quadro’s Vulkan score of 12,482, which is still lower than the FirePro’s OpenCL result.

The Quadro K4200 does have one additional benchmark result that the FirePro M6100 lacks: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 12,482. While this is not a head-to-head comparison, it indicates the Quadro K4200 has functional Vulkan drivers and can run modern compute workloads in that API. The FirePro M6100 has a Vulkan API version listed as 1.2.170, but no Vulkan benchmark score is recorded. This means the Quadro K4200 has demonstrated compute capability in two different APIs, whereas the FirePro M6100 has only proven itself in OpenCL.

In terms of nearest rivals, the FirePro M6100’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon RX 5500M, which scores 13,356 — essentially a tie at a 0% delta. This places the FirePro M6100 in the same performance class as a modern discrete laptop GPU. The Quadro K4200’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Tesla K20Xm, which scores 12,625 and is 1.8% faster. This shows the Quadro K4200 is slightly below a high-end compute accelerator from its own generation. The data overall favors the FirePro M6100 in raw compute, but the Quadro K4200 is not far behind in absolute terms.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 scores 13,354 points, which is 8.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K4200’s 12,313 points.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 have any benchmark where it wins?

A: No. In the single head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), the Quadro K4200 loses. It does have a Geekbench Vulkan score of 12,482, but the FirePro M6100 has no corresponding Vulkan score for comparison.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has a memory bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s, which is 80% higher than the AMD FirePro M6100’s 96.00 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the AMD FirePro M6100 has 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die.

Q: What is the form factor for each card?

A: The AMD FirePro M6100 is an MXM Module (MXM-B 3.0 interface), while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is a single-slot, 241 mm long PCIe 2.0 x16 card.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M6100 wins in raw compute throughput. Its 8.5% OpenCL lead over the Quadro K4200 is the only direct benchmark victory in the data. This makes it the better choice for applications that rely heavily on OpenCL compute, such as certain scientific simulations, financial modeling, or rendering tasks that offload to the GPU. Its higher FP32 performance of 1.971 TFLOPS, compared to the Quadro K4200’s 2.107 TFLOPS, seems contradictory to the benchmark result, but the OpenCL score indicates real-world efficiency in that specific workload. The FirePro M6100 also has a higher transistor density at 13.0M / mm² versus 12.0M / mm², suggesting a more efficient use of silicon.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 wins in memory capacity and bandwidth. With 4 GB of VRAM versus 2 GB, it can hold larger datasets, textures, or geometry in memory without spilling to system RAM. Its bandwidth of 172.8 GB/s is nearly double the FirePro’s 96.00 GB/s, which is critical for memory-bound workloads like high-resolution texture streaming or large frame buffer operations. The Quadro K4200 also has more shading units (1,344 vs 896), more texture mapping units (112 vs 56), and more ROPs (32 vs 16). These hardware resources give it a theoretical peak in pixel rate (21.95 GPixel/s vs 17.60 GPixel/s) and texture rate (87.81 GTexel/s vs 61.60 GTexel/s), even if the OpenCL benchmark does not reflect that advantage.

For physical integration, the Quadro K4200 is a standard single-slot desktop card with display outputs (1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2), making it a drop-in replacement for a workstation tower. The FirePro M6100 is an MXM module, which means it is designed for laptops or compact systems with a proprietary MXM slot. This is a fundamental difference in target platform, not just performance.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every core specification. The AMD FirePro M6100 uses a 128-bit memory bus, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 uses a 256-bit bus. Memory size differs: 2 GB for the FirePro, 4 GB for the Quadro. Memory clock also differs — the FirePro runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective), while the Quadro runs at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective). Despite the lower clock, the Quadro’s wider bus yields higher effective bandwidth.

Compute unit counts are starkly different. The FirePro M6100 has 896 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro K4200 has 1,344 shading units, 112 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The Quadro has 50% more shading units, double the TMUs, and double the ROPs. Pixel rate is 17.60 GPixel/s for the FirePro versus 21.95 GPixel/s for the Quadro. Texture rate is 61.60 GTexel/s versus 87.81 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is close: 1.971 TFLOPS for the FirePro, 2.107 TFLOPS for the Quadro — a 6.9% difference in favor of the Quadro.

The Quadro K4200 has a TDP of 108 W, requires a 1x 6-pin power connector, and has a suggested PSU of 300 W. The FirePro M6100 lists no TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU, consistent with its MXM mobile form factor. The Quadro is 241 mm long and 111 mm high; the FirePro has no listed dimensions. The Quadro uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the FirePro uses MXM-B (3.0). Display outputs differ: the Quadro has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, while the FirePro’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent."

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro M6100 is built on GCN 2.0 architecture, using the Emerald chip. The NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is built on Kepler architecture, using the GK104 chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the dies are very different in size and transistor count. The Quadro’s GK104 die is 294 mm² with 3,540 million transistors, while the FirePro’s Emerald die is 160 mm² with 2,080 million transistors. This gives the FirePro a higher transistor density (13.0M / mm² vs 12.0M / mm²), but the Quadro has more absolute silicon area to work with.

The API support differs in DirectX and Vulkan versions. The FirePro M6100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro K4200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Quadro’s Vulkan version is slightly newer, and its DirectX support is marked as feature level 11_0, which is lower than the FirePro’s 12_0. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The generation names reflect their lineages: the FirePro M6100 is part of "FirePro Mobile (Mx100)" and the Quadro K4200 is part of "Quadro Kepler (Kx200)." The FirePro’s predecessor is "FirePro Mobility" and its successor is "Radeon Pro Mobile." The Quadro’s predecessor is "Quadro Fermi" and its successor is "Quadro Maxwell." These are distinct product lines with different design goals — mobile integration versus desktop workstation performance.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for compute-centric workloads: the AMD FirePro M6100 is faster in the only shared benchmark, with an 8.5% OpenCL advantage that places it at a higher performance percentile (54th vs 52nd). If the primary use case is OpenCL-based computation in a portable or MXM-compatible system, the FirePro M6100 is the superior option based on measured performance.

For desktop workstation users who need more memory and bandwidth, the NVIDIA Quadro K4200 is the better fit. Its 4 GB VRAM and 172.8 GB/s bandwidth are double that of the FirePro M6100, making it more capable for large data sets or high-resolution textures. Its higher theoretical pixel and texture rates also suggest better performance in rasterization-heavy tasks, even though that is not reflected in the OpenCL benchmark. The Quadro K4200 also has standard display outputs (DVI and DisplayPort) and a conventional PCIe slot, making it easier to integrate into existing desktop systems.

Ultimately, the choice depends on the physical platform. If the system requires an MXM module, the FirePro M6100 is the only option with a benchmark win. If the system accepts a full-size PCIe card, the Quadro K4200 offers more memory, more compute units, and higher bandwidth, though it loses in the direct OpenCL comparison. The FirePro M6100 wins the compute benchmark; the Quadro K4200 wins on specs that matter for memory-intensive and desktop-centric workloads.