AMD FirePro W2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000D Comparison

The AMD FirePro W2100 and NVIDIA Quadro 2000D are both end-of-life professional workstation cards, but they represent fundamentally different eras of GPU design. The data shows a clear, albeit narrow, victory for the AMD part, which wins the only shared benchmark. However, the story is more complex than a single score, as the two cards offer distinct architectural trade-offs that matter for specific workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results indicate that the AMD FirePro W2100 is the outright winner in the single head-to-head test available. It secures a 4.1% lead over the Quadro 2000D in the Geekbench OpenCL test, with scores of 4093 and 3930, respectively. This advantage in a compute-oriented API suggests that the FirePro W2100 has a slight edge in general-purpose GPU computing tasks that leverage OpenCL. The data does not show any benchmark where the Quadro 2000D wins, as it records zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Beyond the direct comparison, the percentile rankings reinforce this split. The FirePro W2100 sits in the 25th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 2000D sits in the 23rd. This 2-percentile gap, while small, aligns with the FirePro’s higher average benchmark score of 4295 compared to the Quadro’s 3930. The FirePro also benefits from a second benchmark result, a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4497, which is not available for the Quadro 2000D, as its Vulkan API support is listed as null. This means the AMD card can be used in Vulkan-based applications, while the NVIDIA card cannot, giving the FirePro a functional advantage in modern graphics APIs.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is vast, reflecting their different release periods. The FirePro W2100 is built on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Oland chip, and is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the Quadro 2000D uses NVIDIA’s Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip, built on an older 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process difference is significant, as the newer 28 nm node allows for a much smaller die size of 77 mm² for the AMD chip versus 238 mm² for the NVIDIA chip.

The transistor counts tell an interesting story. The Quadro 2000D packs more transistors overall, with 1,170 million, compared to the FirePro’s 950 million. However, the FirePro’s transistor density is much higher at 12.3M per mm², versus the Quadro’s 4.9M per mm². This indicates that AMD’s newer process allows for a more efficient packing of logic. The memory configurations also differ significantly. The FirePro W2100 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 2000D uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on the same 128-bit bus but achieves a higher bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s. This is a critical difference; the NVIDIA card has 45% more memory bandwidth, which can be crucial for texture-heavy workloads.

Core configurations also diverge. The FirePro W2100 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro 2000D has fewer shading units at 192, but more TMUs at 32 and more ROPs at 16. This suggests the NVIDIA card is tuned for different types of work, with more focus on texture filtering and pixel output, while the AMD card has more raw shader compute. The bus interface also differs, with the FirePro using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the Quadro using the older PCIe 2.0 x16.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures compute performance. In this test, the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4093, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D scores 3930. This results in a 4.1% win for the AMD card. While a 4.1% delta is not a landslide, it is a definitive lead in this specific workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the FirePro’s average benchmark score of 4295 is driven by its strong OpenCL result and its additional Vulkan score of 4497. The Quadro’s average score is simply its OpenCL score of 3930. The FirePro’s Vulkan score is notably higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting that its architecture is particularly well-suited to the newer Vulkan API. The lack of a Vulkan score for the Quadro 2000D is a significant data point; it means that the NVIDIA card is not only slower in OpenCL but also lacks support for a modern graphics standard.

When examining the nearest rivals, both cards are clustered in a similar performance tier. The FirePro W2100’s closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6, which scores 4335, a 0.9% delta from the FirePro’s average. This is an unusual pairing, but it shows that the FirePro’s average score is competitive with a much newer card in this specific benchmark. The Quadro 2000D’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 M420, which scores 3956, a 0.7% delta. This clustering suggests that both cards occupy a niche performance bracket, with the FirePro holding a slight edge.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the AMD FirePro W2100 is the superior card in this comparison. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, has a higher average benchmark score, and supports the Vulkan API, which the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D does not. The FirePro achieves this with a significantly lower TDP of 26 W versus the Quadro’s 62 W, indicating much better power efficiency. This makes the AMD card a better choice for systems with limited power budgets or where heat generation is a concern.

The Quadro 2000D does have a few counterpoints in its favor. Its GDDR5 memory provides substantially higher bandwidth (41.60 GB/s) compared to the FirePro’s DDR3 (28.80 GB/s). This could give it an edge in specific tasks that are heavily bandwidth-bound, such as certain types of texture filtering or large data transfers. Its higher TMU and ROP counts also suggest it might handle fill-rate-heavy tasks better. However, the benchmark data provided does not include any tests that would validate this advantage, as the only test is compute-focused. The data shows that the Quadro 2000D is not a competitive choice against the FirePro W2100 in the measured workloads. The FirePro’s higher percentile rank and better compute scores make it the recommended option for users prioritizing compute and modern API support.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 has a higher average benchmark score of 4295, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D’s 3930.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D support the Vulkan API?

A: No, the data lists Vulkan support as null for the Quadro 2000D. The AMD FirePro W2100 supports Vulkan version 1.2.170.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has a higher memory bandwidth of 41.60 GB/s using GDDR5, while the AMD FirePro W2100 has 28.80 GB/s using DDR3.

Q: How much power does each card consume according to TDP?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 has a TDP of 26 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D has a TDP of 62 W.

Q: What are the release dates for these two cards?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 was released on 2014-08-11, and the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D was released on 2011-10-04.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D?

A: The launch MSRP for the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D is 599 USD. The AMD FirePro W2100 has no listed launch MSRP.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards:

| Specification | AMD FirePro W2100 | NVIDIA Quadro 2000D |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Chip | Oland | GF106 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 238 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 4.9M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective | 650 MHz / 2.6 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 41.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 192 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.440 GPixel/s | 5.000 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 13.60 GTexel/s | 20.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 435.2 GFLOPS | 480.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 26 W | 62 W |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | 2x DVI |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | null |

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | 178 mm (7 inches) |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2014-08-11 | 2011-10-04 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Quadro FX Tesla |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | Quadro Kepler |

| Launch MSRP | null | 599 USD |