AMD FirePro W2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W2100 and NVIDIA Quadro K3000M are both end-of-life professional workstation GPUs aimed at the entry-level mobile and desktop segments, yet they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The benchmark data shows the Quadro K3000M holds a narrow lead in the single available compute test, but the architectural gap between the two is substantial, with the NVIDIA part employing a much larger and more complex chip to achieve its advantage. Both cards sit at the 25th percentile among all GPUs, indicating they are firmly in the entry-level performance tier, but the data reveals they achieve similar results through very different means.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241 points, while the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4093 points. This gives the NVIDIA card a win by a margin of 3.5%. While the Quadro comes out ahead, this is not a dominant victory; the delta is relatively small, suggesting that in real-world compute workloads, the two cards would be closely matched rather than clearly separated.

In the broader context of the average benchmark score, the AMD FirePro W2100 averages 4295 points across its two recorded tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan), while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M averages 4241 points from its single OpenCL result. This flips the head-to-head result, with the AMD card holding a 1.3% advantage over the Quadro when including the Vulkan test where the W2100 scores 4497 points. This indicates that the AMD card may have a stronger showing in API-level compute tasks beyond the single OpenCL test, while the NVIDIA card’s performance is consistent but limited to that one benchmark.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides additional context. The AMD FirePro W2100’s average score of 4295 places it 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282) and 0.6% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268). It trails the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335) by 0.9%. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M’s score of 4241 puts it 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193) and 1.3% behind the AMD FirePro W2100. These narrow percentage differences reinforce that all these GPUs are clustered in the same performance band, and the choice between them would likely come down to features or driver support rather than raw speed.

The data suggests that the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins the single head-to-head test, but the AMD FirePro W2100 has a higher overall average benchmark score when its additional Vulkan result is factored in. This makes the performance comparison nuanced; neither card has a decisive overall victory. The Quadro’s win in OpenCL is real but narrow, while the FirePro’s higher average is driven by a second test that the Quadro does not have a recorded result for.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs diverge sharply in their underlying architecture, despite both being manufactured on the same 28 nm process node by TSMC. The AMD FirePro W2100 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using the Oland chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip. This is a fundamental split in design approach, with AMD opting for a smaller, more power-efficient chip and NVIDIA employing a larger, more feature-rich die.

The transistor counts and die sizes illustrate this difference clearly. The NVIDIA GK104 chip packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, while the AMD Oland chip contains only 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The transistor density is similar — 12.0M per mm² for NVIDIA and 12.3M per mm² for AMD — but the sheer scale of the NVIDIA chip is more than three and a half times larger in transistor count and nearly four times larger in die area. This allows the GK104 to include significantly more execution resources.

The compute resource allocation is heavily skewed toward the NVIDIA card. The Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. In contrast, the FirePro W2100 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This means the NVIDIA card has roughly 80% more shading units, 140% more TMUs, and four times the ROP count. These differences directly translate into higher theoretical throughput rates: the Quadro achieves 753.4 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, 31.39 GTexel/s of texture fill, and 7.848 GPixel/s of pixel fill, while the FirePro manages 435.2 GFLOPS, 13.60 GTexel/s, and 5.440 GPixel/s respectively.

Memory architecture also differs substantially. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD FirePro W2100 also has 2 GB of memory, but it is DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, providing only 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a massive disparity — the Quadro has over three times the memory bandwidth of the FirePro. Despite this, the FirePro’s lower core resource count means it does not need as much bandwidth to feed its execution units, which partially explains why the two cards perform similarly in the benchmark despite the hardware gap.

Clock speeds are relatively close between the two. The AMD card runs at a base of 630 MHz with a boost of 680 MHz, while the NVIDIA card has a fixed base and boost of 654 MHz. The memory clocks differ more noticeably, with the AMD memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) and the NVIDIA memory at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), though the NVIDIA card’s wider bus compensates for the lower clock. Power consumption also tells a story: the FirePro W2100 has a TDP of 26 W, while the Quadro K3000M draws 75 W. The NVIDIA card is much hungrier, but it delivers proportionally higher fill rates and compute throughput.

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 K3000M’s 4241. This is because the AMD card has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 4497 in addition to its OpenCL score, while the NVIDIA card only has an OpenCL result.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M have more memory bandwidth?

A: Yes. The Quadro K3000M has 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth using 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, while the FirePro W2100 has 28.80 GB/s using 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The NVIDIA card has over three times the bandwidth.

Q: What is the TDP of each card?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 has a TDP of 26 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a TDP of 75 W. The AMD card is significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, while the AMD FirePro W2100 has 320. The NVIDIA card has about 80% more shading units.

Q: Are both cards on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. However, the AMD card uses a smaller die (77 mm²) while the NVIDIA card uses a much larger die (294 mm²).

Q: How do the two cards compare in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scores 4241, which is 3.5% higher than the AMD FirePro W2100’s score of 4093 in the same test. This is the only direct head-to-head benchmark available.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two different strategies for the same performance tier. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M wins the direct OpenCL comparison by 3.5%, but it does so by deploying a vastly larger chip with 3,540 million transistors, 576 shading units, and 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD FirePro W2100 counters with a smaller, leaner design — 950 million transistors, 320 shading units, and 28.80 GB/s — yet still manages to post a higher average benchmark score of 4295 thanks to a strong Vulkan result of 4497. The Quadro’s higher fill rates and compute throughput suggest it may be better suited for tasks that heavily utilize those specific resources, while the FirePro’s lower TDP of 26 W versus 75 W makes it a more attractive option for power-constrained environments.

For users prioritizing raw OpenCL compute performance, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M holds the edge. For those who value a broader benchmark profile or lower power consumption, the AMD FirePro W2100 is the better pick. The Quadro’s 1.3% disadvantage in average score is offset by its dominance in theoretical throughput metrics, but the FirePro’s Vulkan score indicates it may be more forward-looking in API support. Both cards are at the 25th percentile, so neither offers compelling performance by modern standards, but within this entry-level segment, the choice hinges on whether the user values the Quadro’s hardware muscle or the FirePro’s efficiency and API versatility.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W2100 | NVIDIA Quadro K3000M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | Oland | GK104 |

| Transistors | 950 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 630 MHz | 654 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 680 MHz | 654 MHz |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 89.60 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 576 |

| TMUs | 20 | 48 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.440 GPixel/s | 7.848 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 13.60 GTexel/s | 31.39 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 435.2 GFLOPS | 753.4 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 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2014-08-11 | 2012-05-31 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Quadro Fermi-M |

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