GPU Comparison

The AMD FirePro W2100 and NVIDIA Quadro P400 are both entry-level, single-slot workstation graphics cards aimed at professional environments, yet they represent distinct technological eras. The data reveals a clear performance hierarchy, but the architectural and feature differences between the two are stark. This analysis will dissect their specifications and benchmark results to determine which card is better suited for specific workloads, based solely on the provided facts.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 4684, placing it in the 27th percentile of all GPUs. The AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4295 on average, which places it in the 25th percentile.

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 wins the OpenCL test with a score of 4249, while the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4093. This represents a 3.7% advantage for the NVIDIA card in this specific test.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two cards?

A: The largest difference is in the Geekbench Vulkan test, where the Quadro P400 scores 5119 compared to the FirePro W2100’s 4497. This translates to a 12.2% lead for the NVIDIA card, its most commanding victory in the head-to-head benchmarks.

Q: Are there any differences in their memory technologies?

A: Yes, the AMD FirePro W2100 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 64-bit bus. This results in the NVIDIA card having a higher memory bandwidth of 32.06 GB/s compared to the AMD card's 28.80 GB/s.

Q: Do the cards have different power requirements?

A: Yes, the AMD FirePro W2100 has a lower thermal design power (TDP) of 26 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 has a TDP of 30 W. Both cards are single-slot and do not require any power connectors, and both suggest a 200 W power supply.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro W2100 and NVIDIA Quadro P400 are built on fundamentally different architectures from different manufacturers and process nodes. The FirePro W2100 is based on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Oland chip, and is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. In contrast, the Quadro P400 is based on NVIDIA’s Pascal architecture, using the GP107 chip, and is built on a more advanced 14 nm process at Samsung.

This generational leap is reflected in the transistor counts and die sizes. The AMD chip contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per mm². The NVIDIA chip is much more complex, packing 3,300 million transistors onto a 132 mm² die, which yields a higher density of 25.0 million transistors per mm². This disparity in transistor density highlights the efficiency and complexity advantages of the newer 14 nm manufacturing process.

The compute configurations also differ. The AMD card has a higher number of shading units (320) and texture mapping units (20), but only 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA card, despite having fewer shading units (256) and TMUs (16), boasts 16 ROPs, which is double the amount found on the AMD card. This suggests a different design focus, with NVIDIA potentially optimizing for pixel throughput and memory bandwidth efficiency. Furthermore, the AMD card’s maximum supported DirectX version is 12 (11_1), while the NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (12_1), indicating a more complete implementation of the modern graphics API.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is the clear winner in all measured categories. It outperforms the AMD FirePro W2100 in both the Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan tests. This suggests that for general-purpose compute tasks leveraging OpenCL, and especially for applications that can utilize the Vulkan API, the Quadro P400 offers a tangible performance advantage.

The AMD FirePro W2100 does not win any of the head-to-head benchmark comparisons. Its strengths, if any, are not evident in the provided data. The only metric where it holds a nominal advantage is in its lower TDP of 26 W, which is 4 W less than the Quadro P400’s 30 W. This could theoretically make it a slightly more power-efficient choice in a heavily populated system, but the performance deficit is substantial.

In terms of connectivity, the NVIDIA card also has a practical advantage, offering 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs. The AMD card only provides 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. This makes the Quadro P400 a more flexible solution for multi-monitor setups, especially those requiring newer display standards. The data suggests a clear split: the Quadro P400 is the superior performer, while the FirePro W2100 is the more conservative option in terms of power draw.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ significantly across several core specifications, reflecting their different generations and design goals. The most notable differences are in the manufacturing process, memory, and compute resources.

The AMD FirePro W2100 is built on a 28 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 uses a 14 nm process. This directly impacts the transistor density, with the NVIDIA chip having a density of 25.0M / mm² compared to the AMD chip's 12.3M / mm². The memory subsystems are also distinct. The FirePro W2100 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, achieving a bandwidth of 28.80 GB/s. The Quadro P400 uses 2 GB of faster GDDR5 memory on a narrower 64-bit bus, but still achieves a higher bandwidth of 32.06 GB/s.

The compute resources show a trade-off. The AMD card has more shading units (320 vs 256) and TMUs (20 vs 16), but the NVIDIA card has more ROPs (16 vs 8). This is reflected in their peak rates. The AMD card has a pixel rate of 5.440 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 13.60 GTexel/s, but the NVIDIA card has a much higher pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.03 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance also favors NVIDIA, with the Quadro P400 delivering 641.0 GFLOPS compared to the FirePro W2100’s 435.2 GFLOPS.

Other differences include the bus interface. The AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA card uses the full-bandwidth PCIe 3.0 x16. The display outputs are also different, as previously noted. The AMD card supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA card supports a newer Vulkan 1.4. The physical dimensions are similar in height, but the AMD card is longer at 168 mm compared to the NVIDIA card’s 150 mm.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results provide a clear numerical picture of the performance differential. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 scores 4249, defeating the AMD FirePro W2100’s score of 4093. This is a 3.7% difference in favor of the Quadro P400. While this is not a massive gap, it still positions the NVIDIA card as the more capable performer in OpenCL workloads.

The Geekbench Vulkan test shows a much larger disparity. Here, the Quadro P400 achieves a score of 5119, while the FirePro W2100 manages 4497. This yields a delta of 12.2%, which is the largest single-benchmark advantage for either card. This substantial lead in Vulkan performance suggests that the Pascal architecture has a significant advantage in modern, low-level graphics APIs, potentially making the Quadro P400 a better choice for newer applications and games that leverage Vulkan.

Overall, the data shows that the NVIDIA Quadro P400 wins both head-to-head matchups. The average benchmark scores reinforce this, with the Quadro P400 averaging 4684, which is nearly 400 points higher than the FirePro W2100’s average of 4295. The FirePro W2100’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M, has an average score of 4282, which is only 0.3% different, highlighting that the AMD card is positioned at a performance tier that the Quadro P400 has clearly surpassed.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally points to the NVIDIA Quadro P400 as the superior product. It wins every single benchmark comparison and holds a significant lead in average performance. The 12.2% advantage in the Vulkan test is particularly telling, suggesting that the Pascal architecture is far better equipped for modern graphics and compute workloads. For any user seeking the highest level of performance from these two entry-level workstation cards, the Quadro P400 is the only logical choice.

The AMD FirePro W2100, while having a slightly lower TDP, offers no performance benefit. Its lower clock speeds, older architecture, and less efficient memory subsystem place it firmly behind the Quadro P400 in all measured tasks. The FirePro W2100’s only potential advantage is its lower power draw, which might be a factor in very specific power-constrained environments, but this is a minor consideration when weighed against the significant performance deficit.

In summary, the choice is clear. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 should be chosen for its superior compute performance, faster memory, and more modern feature set. The AMD FirePro W2100 is a dated product that cannot compete with the newer Pascal-based card. The benchmark results show a decisive victory for NVIDIA, with a 3.7% to 12.2% performance advantage across the board, making it the definitive pick for professional work where performance is a priority.