AMD FirePro W2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between these two professional mobile GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4093, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718. That gives AMD a 10.1% advantage, and it sweeps the head-to-head with a 1-0 win count. The margin is meaningful but not overwhelming; it places the FirePro in a slightly higher performance tier than the older Quadro part.

Looking at the broader context, the FirePro W2100's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4295, while the Quadro 3000M's average is 3718. That gap of roughly 15% in favor of AMD is consistent with the single OpenCL result, though it also reflects that the FirePro has two benchmark entries (OpenCL and Vulkan) while the Quadro has only one. The FirePro's Vulkan score of 4497 is notably higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting that the card scales better with newer API workloads. The Quadro has no Vulkan result recorded, so any comparison there is impossible from the data.

The FirePro W2100 sits at the 25th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the Quadro 3000M sits at the 22nd percentile. That three-point gap indicates the AMD part is marginally better positioned among the full spectrum of recorded graphics hardware, though both are firmly in the lower-performance half of the database. The FirePro's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (avg score 4282, delta 0.3%), the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (avg score 4268, delta 0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (avg score 4335, delta -0.9%), and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (avg score 4241, delta 1.3%). The Quadro 3000M's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M (avg score 3717, delta 0%), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M (avg score 3740, delta -0.6%), the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (avg score 3694, delta 0.6%), and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (avg score 3649, delta 1.9%). These clusters show that the FirePro competes against noticeably faster cards, while the Quadro is grouped with slower ones, reinforcing the performance hierarchy.

# Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W2100 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, and it also wins on API breadth. Its OpenCL score of 4093 beats the Quadro's 3718 by 10.1%, and its Vulkan score of 4497 suggests it handles modern compute workloads better. The fact that the FirePro's Vulkan result exceeds its OpenCL result by about 10% implies the architecture scales well with newer driver and API optimizations, which is relevant for any current software stack that uses Vulkan compute.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M, despite losing the compute comparison, has strengths in different areas. Its memory subsystem is substantially wider: a 256-bit bus versus the FirePro's 128-bit bus, and it uses GDDR5 rather than DDR3. The recorded bandwidth is 80.00 GB/s for the Quadro versus 28.80 GB/s for the FirePro, a 2.8x advantage. That bandwidth advantage does not translate into a compute win in the recorded data, but it could matter for workloads that are memory-bound rather than shader-bound. The Quadro also has 40 texture mapping units and 32 raster output units, versus 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs for the FirePro. Higher ROP counts generally help with fill-rate-limited tasks such as heavy multi-sample anti-aliasing or high-resolution framebuffer operations, even if the raw pixel rate is comparable (4.500 GPixel/s for Quadro versus 5.440 GPixel/s for FirePro).

The FirePro wins on texture rate: 13.60 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s? No, the data shows the Quadro has the higher texture rate at 18.00 GTexel/s, while the FirePro manages 13.60 GTexel/s. The Quadro also has higher FP32 compute at 432.0 GFLOPS versus 435.2 GFLOPS? Actually, the FirePro edges ahead with 435.2 GFLOPS versus the Quadro's 432.0 GFLOPS, a difference of less than 1%. The pixel rate favors the FirePro at 5.440 GPixel/s versus 4.500 GPixel/s, a 21% advantage. So the split is nuanced: AMD wins in pixel throughput and raw FP32, NVIDIA wins in texture throughput and memory bandwidth.

# Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The AMD FirePro W2100 uses the Oland chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M uses the GF104 chip based on Fermi architecture, built on a 40 nm process, also at TSMC. The node difference is significant: 28 nm versus 40 nm means the FirePro has a smaller transistor geometry, which typically yields better power efficiency. The FirePro packs 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The Quadro packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, giving a density of only 5.9 million per square millimeter. The FirePro's density is more than double that of the Quadro, reflecting the newer process and tighter design.

The shader configurations differ as well. The FirePro has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro has 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having more shading units, the FirePro's FP32 output (435.2 GFLOPS) is only marginally higher than the Quadro's (432.0 GFLOPS), because the Quadro's Fermi architecture uses a different clock and execution model. The Quadro's base and boost clocks are not recorded in the database, but the memory clock is 625 MHz with 2.5 Gbps effective, while the FirePro runs its memory at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective.

Memory configurations differ strongly. The FirePro has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s. The Quadro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 80.00 GB/s. That is a 2.8x bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA, which is a substantial architectural difference. The FirePro's power envelope is much lower: 26 W TDP versus 75 W TDP. The FirePro is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W, while the Quadro is an MXM module with no power connectors and no suggested PSU listed. The bus interfaces differ too: the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), which is a mobile module standard.

API support shows a split. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan support is recorded. The FirePro's newer API stack, especially Vulkan, gives it a compatibility edge for modern applications.

# The Verdict

The data supports a clear but conditional choice. The AMD FirePro W2100 is the faster card in compute benchmarks, with a 10.1% lead over the Quadro 3000M in Geekbench OpenCL and a Vulkan score (4497) that the Quadro cannot match because it has no recorded Vulkan result. The FirePro also has a lower TDP (26 W versus 75 W), newer process node (28 nm versus 40 nm), higher pixel rate (5.440 GPixel/s versus 4.500 GPixel/s), and slightly higher FP32 (435.2 GFLOPS versus 432.0 GFLOPS). It wins on API support with Vulkan and DirectX 12 (11_1) versus DirectX 12 (11_0).

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is not without merits. Its memory bandwidth is 2.8x higher (80.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s), its texture rate is higher (18.00 GTexel/s versus 13.60 GTexel/s), and it has more TMUs (40 versus 20) and ROPs (32 versus 8). For workloads that are memory-bandwidth-limited or texture-heavy, the Quadro could outperform the FirePro despite losing the synthetic compute test. The Quadro's larger die (332 mm² versus 77 mm²) and double the transistor count (1,950 million versus 950 million) indicate a more complex design, though it is built on an older, less dense process.

Who should pick which? Based strictly on the recorded data, the FirePro W2100 is the better choice for compute-oriented tasks, modern API compatibility, and power-constrained systems. The Quadro 3000M is the better choice for legacy workloads that rely on high memory bandwidth or high texture throughput, and for systems that require an MXM form factor. The FirePro's percentile ranking (25th versus 22nd) and higher average score (4295 versus 3718) further tilt the overall verdict toward AMD, but the bandwidth gap is large enough that the Quadro remains relevant for specific use cases.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4093, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718. The FirePro leads by 10.1%.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M support Vulkan?

A: No. The database records no Vulkan support for the Quadro 3000M. The AMD FirePro W2100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4497.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the AMD FirePro W2100's 28.80 GB/s. The Quadro uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the FirePro uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 has a TDP of 26 W with a suggested PSU of 200 W. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has a TDP of 75 W and no suggested PSU is recorded.

Q: What process nodes are used by each card?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 is built on a 28 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M is built on a 40 nm process. Both are manufactured by TSMC.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 has a pixel rate of 5.440 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has a pixel rate of 4.500 GPixel/s. The FirePro leads by about 21%.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W2100 | NVIDIA Quadro 3000M |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Chip | Oland | GF104 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Generation | FirePro GCN (Wx100) | Quadro Fermi-M (x000M) |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,950 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 332 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 630 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 680 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 80.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 240 |

| TMUs | 20 | 40 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.440 GPixel/s | 4.500 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 13.60 GTexel/s | 18.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 435.2 GFLOPS | 432.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 26 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2014-08-11 | 2011-02-21 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Quadro FX Mobile |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 4093 | 3718 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 4295 | 3718 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 25 | 22 |