GPU Comparison

The benchmark data is unequivocal: the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is in a completely different performance class than the AMD FirePro W2100. Across the two shared tests, the M3000M delivers a staggering 306.7% advantage in OpenCL and a 270.6% advantage in Vulkan, making the W2100 a legacy entry-level part rather than a direct competitor. The M3000M's average benchmark score of 4621 sits just 0.1% below the GeForce GTX 970M, while the W2100's 4295 average places it between the GeForce GTX 460M and the Quadro K3000M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmarks where both GPUs have recorded scores are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M3000M scores 16646 against the FirePro W2100's 4093, a delta of 306.7%. This is not a marginal lead; it is a fourfold performance gap that reflects fundamental differences in shading hardware, memory bandwidth, and clock speeds. The Vulkan result is similarly lopsided: 16668 for the M3000M versus 4497 for the W2100, a 270.6% advantage. The M3000M's Vulkan score is actually higher than its OpenCL score, whereas the W2100's Vulkan score (4497) trails its OpenCL result (4093) by a smaller margin, suggesting the older GCN architecture handles the newer API less efficiently.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the M3000M's Passmark G3D score of 5543 and GPU compute score of 2139 are not directly comparable to the W2100 because the latter has no recorded Passmark results in the data. However, the M3000M's average benchmark score of 4621 places it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the W2100's 4295 average lands in the 25th percentile. The percentile gap of only 2 points might seem small, but the raw score difference of 326 points is substantial given that the M3000M is rated at roughly 1.892 TFLOPS FP32 against the W2100's 435.2 GFLOPS, a 4.35x raw compute advantage.

The nearest rivals for each card further illuminate the gap. The M3000M's closest competitor is the GeForce GTX 970M at a 0.1% higher average score, followed by the AMD Radeon R5 M320 and the Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, both at a 0.8% higher score. This tells us the M3000M performs at the level of a mid-range consumer gaming GPU from its era. The W2100's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 460M (0.3% higher), the Radeon Vega 3 (0.6% higher), and the Quadro K3000M (1.3% higher), all of which are older or much lower-tier parts. In head-to-head wins, the M3000M takes both available tests, with the W2100 registering zero wins.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has an average benchmark score of 4621, while the AMD FirePro W2100 averages 4295. The M3000M's score is 326 points higher, a 7.6% advantage that places it in the 27th percentile versus the W2100's 25th percentile.

Q: How large is the performance gap in compute workloads?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the M3000M scores 16646 versus the W2100's 4093, a 306.7% advantage. The M3000M's FP32 throughput is 1.892 TFLOPS compared to the W2100's 435.2 GFLOPS, representing a 4.35x raw compute difference.

Q: Does the FirePro W2100 win in any benchmark category?

A: No. The data shows zero wins for the W2100 across the two shared benchmarks (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan). The M3000M wins both by margins of 270.6% or more.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The M3000M's average score is 0.1% below the GeForce GTX 970M and 0.8% below the Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB. The W2100's average is 0.3% below the GeForce GTX 460M and 1.3% below the Quadro K3000M.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The M3000M has 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth from 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The W2100 has 28.80 GB/s from 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus. The M3000M's bandwidth is 5.57x higher.

Q: Which GPU supports newer API versions?

A: The M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. The W2100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The M3000M is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM204 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². The W2100 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the Oland chip, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but only 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a density of 12.3M per mm². The M3000M's die is over five times larger, which explains its massive resource advantage.

The shading resources differ dramatically. The M3000M has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The W2100 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. This 3.2x shading unit advantage and 4x ROP advantage directly translate into the M3000M's pixel rate of 29.57 GPixel/s versus 5.440 GPixel/s, and texture rate of 59.14 GTexel/s versus 13.60 GTexel/s. The M3000M's boost clock of 924 MHz is substantially higher than the W2100's 680 MHz boost, compounding the resource advantage.

Memory architecture is another chasm. The M3000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The W2100 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering only 28.80 GB/s. The M3000M's memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the W2100's 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). Neither card features ray tracing or tensor cores, and both are end-of-life products, but the M3000M was released on 2015-08-17, roughly one year after the W2100's 2014-08-11 launch.

The Verdict

The data leads to a singular conclusion: the Quadro M3000M is the superior GPU by every measurable metric. It wins 2 out of 2 head-to-head benchmarks, has a higher average score (4621 vs 4295), a higher percentile ranking (27th vs 25th), and a 306.7% OpenCL advantage. The M3000M's 1.892 TFLOPS FP32 throughput, 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, and 1024 shading units place it in a completely different performance tier than the W2100's 435.2 GFLOPS, 28.80 GB/s, and 320 shading units.

For any workload involving compute, 3D rendering, or modern API utilization, the M3000M is the only rational choice. Its nearest rival is the GeForce GTX 970M, not the W2100. The W2100's closest competitors are the GeForce GTX 460M and the Quadro K3000M, which tells you it belongs in a legacy, low-demand environment. The only advantages the W2100 holds are physical: a 26 W TDP versus 75 W, a single-slot form factor versus MXM Module, and a 168 mm length versus the M3000M's portable-device-dependent layout. If power draw is the absolute priority, the W2100 edges ahead, but the performance penalty is enormous.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The M3000M uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the W2100 uses Oland with GCN 1.0. The M3000M has 5,200 million transistors versus 950 million, and a die size of 398 mm² versus 77 mm². Clock speeds: the M3000M runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost, while the W2100 runs at 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost. Memory is 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus for the M3000M versus 2 GB DDR3 on a 128-bit bus for the W2100.

Compute resources: the M3000M has 1024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs; the W2100 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s versus 5.440 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 13.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1.892 TFLOPS versus 435.2 GFLOPS. TDP is 75 W versus 26 W. The bus interface differs: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the M3000M, PCIe 3.0 x8 for the W2100. The W2100 has 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the M3000M's display outputs are portable-device dependent. The W2100 is a single-slot card measuring 168 mm in length, while the M3000M is an MXM module. API support differs: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1), and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M3000M wins in every performance category measured. For OpenCL compute, it scores 16646 versus 4093. For Vulkan, it scores 16668 versus 4497. It wins on pixel rate (29.57 GPixel/s), texture rate (59.14 GTexel/s), FP32 throughput (1.892 TFLOPS), memory bandwidth (160.4 GB/s), and raw shading resources (1024 vs 320 units). It is the clear choice for any task involving GPU compute, 3D modeling, CAD, or modern graphics APIs. Its benchmark average of 4621 places it among mid-range gaming GPUs like the GTX 970M, meaning it can handle real workloads.

The FirePro W2100 wins in exactly one domain: power efficiency. Its 26 W TDP is less than half the M3000M's 75 W, making it suitable for low-power, low-profile systems. It is also a single-slot card with a 168 mm length, which fits in compact chassis, whereas the M3000M's MXM form factor requires a compatible laptop or mobile workstation. The W2100's 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs give it a fixed display configuration, while the M3000M's outputs depend on the host device. If the requirement is a minimal-power, small-footprint GPU for basic display output and light 2D workloads, the W2100 has a niche. For everything else, the M3000M is the definitive winner, with a 306.7% OpenCL lead and a 270.6% Vulkan lead that cannot be overstated.