AMD FirePro W2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data contains a single direct comparison between the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 and the AMD FirePro W2100, using the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this workload, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 posts a score of 4979, while the AMD FirePro W2100 achieves 4093. The resulting margin is a 21.6% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a substantial gap that places the two products in different performance tiers despite both being entry-to-mid professional workstation solutions.

Contextualizing the Quadro 4000's score against its nearest rivals shows a tightly packed cluster. The GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB scores 4970, a delta of just 0.2% behind the Quadro 4000, while the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4998, 0.4% ahead. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 sits 0.8% higher at 5018, and the Radeon R7 M360 trails by 1.0% at 4931. This indicates that the Quadro 4000's OpenCL result is remarkably competitive with modern integrated and low-end discrete graphics, despite its age and professional orientation. The 29th percentile ranking across all GPUs further confirms that this card sits near the lower-middle of the overall performance distribution.

The FirePro W2100's nearest rivals paint a similar picture of mid-pack positioning. The GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282, just 0.3% behind, while the Radeon Vega 3 scores 4268, a 0.6% deficit. Interestingly, the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 scores 4335, which is 0.9% higher than the FirePro W2100, showing that even a high-end modern GPU can land close in this specific OpenCL test. The Quadro K3000M scores 4241, 1.3% lower. The FirePro W2100's 25th percentile ranking places it slightly below the Quadro 4000 in the overall GPU hierarchy.

The head-to-head delta of 21.6% is decisive. The Quadro 4000's OpenCL score is not merely marginally better; it is roughly one-fifth higher, which translates into meaningfully faster compute throughput for workloads that leverage OpenCL acceleration. The FirePro W2100 does have an additional Vulkan benchmark result of 4497, but the Quadro 4000 has no recorded Vulkan score, so no direct comparison is possible in that API.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a single benchmark category, and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins it outright. In OpenCL compute, the Quadro 4000 delivers 486.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to the FirePro W2100's 435.2 GFLOPS. That 51.2 GFLOPS difference is the arithmetic foundation of the 21.6% benchmark margin. For professional applications that rely on OpenCL for tasks like rendering, simulation, or image processing, the Quadro 4000 is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements.

The FirePro W2100's advantages lie elsewhere. It is the only card of the two with a Vulkan score (4497), indicating that it has at least some Vulkan capability that the Quadro 4000 lacks entirely. The FirePro W2100 also supports Vulkan 1.2.170 in its API list, whereas the Quadro 4000 lists no Vulkan support. For workloads that require modern Vulkan-based compute or rendering, the FirePro W2100 is the only option, though its OpenCL deficit means it is not universally superior.

In terms of physical and power characteristics, the FirePro W2100 is dramatically more efficient. Its TDP is 26 W versus 142 W for the Quadro 4000, making it suitable for systems with minimal cooling and power delivery. It requires no external power connectors, while the Quadro 4000 needs a single 6-pin connector. The suggested PSU for the FirePro W2100 is 200 W, versus 300 W for the Quadro 4000. For low-profile or passively cooled workstation builds where power budget is critical, the FirePro W2100 is the practical pick.

The Quadro 4000 counters with higher raw throughput in every measured fill-rate category. Its pixel rate is 7.600 GPixel/s versus 5.440 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 15.20 GTexel/s versus 13.60 GTexel/s. Memory bandwidth is also lopsided: 89.86 GB/s for the Quadro 4000 against 28.80 GB/s for the FirePro W2100. These figures favor the Quadro 4000 in bandwidth-sensitive tasks like high-resolution texture streaming or large framebuffer operations.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two cards is substantial. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip built on the Fermi architecture, manufactured at 40 nm by TSMC. The AMD FirePro W2100 uses the Oland chip based on GCN 1.0, built at 28 nm, also by TSMC. The process node difference (40 nm versus 28 nm) explains much of the power and efficiency disparity.

Transistor counts diverge sharply. The Quadro 4000 packs 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9M per mm². The FirePro W2100 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a much higher density of 12.3M per mm². The FirePro's smaller, denser chip is a direct result of the newer manufacturing process, allowing it to achieve reasonable performance at a fraction of the power draw.

The memory subsystems are fundamentally different. The Quadro 4000 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W2100 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding only 28.80 GB/s. The memory clock rates reflect this: the Quadro 4000's memory runs at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), while the FirePro W2100's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Despite the FirePro's higher raw clock, its narrower bus and slower memory type result in roughly one-third the bandwidth.

Compute unit configurations also differ. The Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro W2100 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The FirePro actually has more shaders, but fewer texture units and a drastically lower ROP count, which explains its lower pixel fill rate. The Quadro 4000's FP32 throughput of 486.4 GFLOPS edges out the FirePro W2100's 435.2 GFLOPS despite the shader deficit, because the Quadro's higher clock architecture compensates.

Interface support shows the FirePro's newer design. The FirePro W2100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro 4000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. The FirePro also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and has no Vulkan entry. Both cards list OpenGL 4.6 support.

Display outputs differ as well. The Quadro 4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort, while the FirePro W2100 offers 2x DisplayPort 1.2. The FirePro's outputs are all DisplayPort, which may be preferable in modern multi-monitor setups, but the Quadro's DVI port provides legacy connectivity.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 21.6% higher than the AMD FirePro W2100's score of 4093.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W2100 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the FirePro W2100 lists Vulkan 1.2.170 in its API support and has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4497. The Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: How do the power requirements compare?

A: The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W and requires a 6-pin power connector and a 300 W PSU. The FirePro W2100 has a TDP of 26 W, needs no power connectors, and works with a 200 W PSU.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro 4000 offers 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth using GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The FirePro W2100 provides 28.80 GB/s using DDR3 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Are both cards still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life. The Quadro 4000 was released in 2010, and the FirePro W2100 was released in 2014.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro 4000 achieves 7.600 GPixel/s, while the FirePro W2100 achieves 5.440 GPixel/s, a difference of roughly 40% in favor of the Quadro.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights only the fields where the two cards differ:

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro 4000 | AMD FirePro W2100 |

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

| Chip | GF100 | Oland |

| Architecture | Fermi | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Fermi (x000) | FirePro GCN (Wx100) |

| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 3,100 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 529 mm² | 77 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | N/A | 630 MHz |

| Boost Clock | N/A | 680 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 256 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 89.86 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 320 |

| TMUs | 32 | 20 |

| ROPs | 32 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.600 GPixel/s | 5.440 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 15.20 GTexel/s | 13.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 486.4 GFLOPS | 435.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 142 W | 26 W |

| Power Connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |

| Suggested PSU | 300 W | 200 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions (Length) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) | 168 mm (6.6 inches) |

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

| Dimensions (Width) | 20 mm (0.8 inches) | N/A |

| Release Date | 2010-11-01 | 2014-08-11 |

| Predecessor | Quadro FX Tesla | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Quadro Kepler | Radeon Pro Polaris |

| Launch MSRP | 1,199 USD | N/A |

| OpenCL Benchmark | 4979 | 4093 |

| Vulkan Benchmark | N/A | 4497 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 29 | 25 |