AMD FirePro W2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W2100 and NVIDIA Quadro K2100M are both end-of-life professional mobile/workstation graphics solutions from the 28 nm era, but the data shows two very different performance profiles. The head-to-head benchmark results are split exactly one win apiece. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4587 against the AMD FirePro W2100’s 4093, a delta of -10.8% for the AMD part. That is a decisive 494-point margin in favor of NVIDIA. However, the tables turn in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4497 versus the Quadro K2100M’s 4343, giving AMD a 3.5% lead. This split outcome means neither card is universally faster; the winner depends entirely on the API and workload in question.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant performance gap between these two cards appears in the OpenCL workload. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M’s score of 4587 is 10.8% higher than the AMD FirePro W2100’s 4093. This is a substantial margin that suggests NVIDIA’s Kepler architecture holds a clear advantage in compute tasks that leverage OpenCL. The Quadro K2100M’s advantage is further contextualized by its hardware specifications: it carries 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, compared to the AMD FirePro W2100’s 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA part also delivers 768.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 435.2 GFLOPS for the AMD card. This raw compute advantage translates directly into the OpenCL score difference.

The Vulkan benchmark, however, tells a different story. Here, the AMD FirePro W2100 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, scoring 4497 against 4343. That 154-point difference represents a 3.5% lead for AMD. This is notable because the NVIDIA card has significantly more raw hardware resources, yet AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture manages to extract better Vulkan performance. The AMD FirePro W2100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, so both have comparable API-level features. The performance inversion suggests that AMD’s driver implementation or architectural design is more efficient for Vulkan’s specific execution model, despite the NVIDIA card’s superior theoretical throughput.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the AMD FirePro W2100’s average benchmark score is 4295, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M averages 4151. This puts the AMD card at a 3.5% higher average across all tests. The AMD part also has a slight edge in its nearest rival comparisons. The FirePro W2100’s closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M, which averages 4282, a delta of just 0.3%. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M’s nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 M330, which averages 4170, a delta of -0.4%. Both cards sit at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, indicating they are both entry-level performers in the broader market. Notably, the AMD FirePro W2100’s rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 with an average score of 4335, showing a delta of -0.9% — meaning the older AMD card is within striking distance of a modern high-end part in this particular benchmark metric, though this is likely an anomaly of the specific test methodology.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the choice between these two cards hinges on the primary application. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M is the clear winner for OpenCL-based compute workloads. Its 10.8% advantage in that benchmark is substantial and consistent with its 76.6% higher FP32 throughput (768.4 GFLOPS versus 435.2 GFLOPS). The Quadro K2100M also has a significant memory bandwidth advantage, delivering 48.13 GB/s from its GDDR5 memory versus the FirePro W2100’s 28.80 GB/s from DDR3. For professionals running OpenCL-accelerated tasks like rendering, simulation, or data processing, the NVIDIA card is the data-backed choice.

The AMD FirePro W2100, however, is the better option for Vulkan-based applications. Its 3.5% lead in the Vulkan benchmark, despite having fewer shading units and lower clock speeds, indicates a more efficient architecture for this API. The FirePro W2100’s boost clock of 680 MHz is higher than the Quadro K2100M’s fixed 667 MHz, but that alone does not explain the Vulkan advantage. The AMD card also consumes significantly less power, with a 26 W TDP versus the NVIDIA card’s 55 W. For systems where thermal management and power draw are critical, the AMD card is the more efficient choice.

Neither card is a definitive winner overall. The average benchmark scores show the AMD FirePro W2100 ahead at 4295 versus 4151 for the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M, but this aggregate figure masks the divergent performance in individual tests. The NVIDIA card wins the more demanding compute benchmark by a wide margin, while the AMD card wins the modern graphics API benchmark by a narrower margin. Users who prioritize OpenCL performance should select the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M; users who prioritize Vulkan performance or power efficiency should select the AMD FirePro W2100.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro K2100M wins on raw compute throughput. The data shows a 10.8% lead in OpenCL, backed by 576 shading units versus 320, 48 TMUs versus 20, and 768.4 GFLOPS versus 435.2 GFLOPS. The memory subsystem is also superior, with GDDR5 memory providing 48.13 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the AMD card’s 28.80 GB/s. For applications that are memory-bandwidth-bound or require massive parallel compute, the NVIDIA card is the clear winner.

AMD FirePro W2100 wins on Vulkan efficiency and power consumption. The 3.5% Vulkan lead demonstrates that architectural efficiency can overcome raw hardware disadvantages. The FirePro W2100 achieves this with a 26 W TDP, less than half the Quadro K2100M’s 55 W. The AMD card is also more physically flexible, using a standard PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and a single-slot design measuring 168 mm in length, while the NVIDIA card uses an MXM-A (3.0) module form factor, which is portable-device-dependent for display outputs. The AMD card features 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the NVIDIA card’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning its connectivity varies by the host laptop.

Frequency and density differences also matter. The AMD FirePro W2100 has a transistor density of 12.3M per mm² on a 77 mm² die, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has a density of 11.5M per mm² on a much larger 221 mm² die. The NVIDIA chip packs 2,540 million transistors versus AMD’s 950 million, but the AMD design achieves higher density, which can contribute to better power efficiency per unit of performance.

FAQ

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 has an average benchmark score of 4295, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M averages 4151. This gives the AMD card a 3.5% higher average across all tests.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4587 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 10.8% higher than the AMD FirePro W2100’s 4093. This is the largest performance gap between the two cards in any benchmark.

Q: Which card performs better in Vulkan applications?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4497 in Geekbench Vulkan, beating the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M’s 4343 by 3.5%. This is a notable win for AMD given the NVIDIA card’s larger hardware resources.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus. However, the AMD FirePro W2100 uses DDR3 memory with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M uses GDDR5 memory with 48.13 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 has a TDP of 26 W and requires a 200 W suggested PSU, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has a TDP of 55 W with no suggested PSU listed. The AMD card also uses no power connectors, as does the NVIDIA card.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size for each chip?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 uses the Oland chip with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M uses the GK106S chip with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different architectural approaches from their respective manufacturers. The AMD FirePro W2100 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture using the Oland chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M uses Kepler architecture with the GK106S chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M’s Kepler chip is substantially larger, with a die size of 221 mm² compared to the AMD FirePro W2100’s 77 mm². This size difference reflects the transistor count: NVIDIA packs 2,540 million transistors into its chip, while AMD uses 950 million. Interestingly, AMD achieves a higher transistor density of 12.3M per mm² versus NVIDIA’s 11.5M per mm², indicating a more compact design despite the smaller overall die.

The execution resources differ significantly. The NVIDIA card has 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the AMD card has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These numbers directly correlate with the pixel and texture rates: the NVIDIA card delivers 8.004 GPixel/s and 32.02 GTexel/s, while the AMD card manages 5.440 GPixel/s and 13.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance follows the same pattern, with NVIDIA at 768.4 GFLOPS and AMD at 435.2 GFLOPS.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The AMD FirePro W2100 has a base clock of 630 MHz and a boost clock of 680 MHz, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M runs at a fixed 667 MHz for both base and boost. The AMD card’s memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the NVIDIA card’s memory runs at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective). Despite the lower memory clock, the NVIDIA card’s GDDR5 memory delivers 48.13 GB/s versus the AMD card’s 28.80 GB/s from DDR3.

API support shows minor differences. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The NVIDIA card has a slightly newer Vulkan version, which may contribute to its better Vulkan feature support, though the benchmark data shows AMD winning in Vulkan performance anyway.

Form factors and connectivity differ substantially. The AMD FirePro W2100 uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, measures 168 mm in length (6.6 inches) and 69 mm in height (2.7 inches), and is a single-slot design with 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface, has no listed dimensions, and its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by the host laptop. The AMD card’s standardized PCIe form factor makes it more versatile for desktop or workstation integration, while the NVIDIA card is designed exclusively for mobile platforms.

Both cards are end-of-life products. The AMD FirePro W2100 was released on 2014-08-11, succeeding FirePro Terascale and preceding Radeon Pro Polaris. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M was released earlier on 2013-07-22, succeeding Quadro Fermi-M and preceding Quadro Maxwell-M. Neither card has a listed launch MSRP, and both sit at the 25th percentile of all GPUs, confirming their entry-level positioning in the professional graphics market.