AMD FirePro W2100 vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 and AMD FirePro W2100 are both entry-level professional graphics cards from different architectural eras. The recorded data shows a clear split in capabilities, with the newer Pascal-based card taking the lead in both recorded benchmark tests, though the older GCN-based card retains some structural advantages in raw compute unit counts.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results in the database show the NVIDIA Quadro P400 winning both recorded head-to-head tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the P400 scores 4249 against the FirePro W2100’s 4093, a 3.8% advantage. The gap widens considerably in Geekbench Vulkan, where the P400 scores 5119 against 4497, a 13.8% lead. This suggests the P400 is the stronger choice for compute-heavy workloads, particularly those leveraging Vulkan’s modern API features.

The AMD FirePro W2100 does not win any of the recorded head-to-head benchmark tests. However, its specification sheet reveals strengths in specific hardware configurations. It carries 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and a 128-bit memory bus, compared to the P400’s 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 64-bit bus. This means the W2100 has a higher theoretical parallel throughput per clock, but the P400 compensates with significantly higher clock speeds and newer memory technology. For workloads that are sensitive to memory bandwidth rather than raw throughput, the W2100’s wider bus might offer advantages in certain professional applications, though the benchmark data does not confirm this.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from different manufacturing generations and architectures. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 uses the GP107 chip built on the Pascal architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It contains 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 25.0 million per square millimeter. The AMD FirePro W2100 uses the Oland chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter.

The process node difference is substantial: 14 nm versus 28 nm. This explains the P400’s higher transistor density and its ability to pack more compute capability into a smaller physical footprint. The P400’s die is actually larger than the W2100’s at 132 mm² versus 77 mm², but it holds over three times more transistors. This architectural gap translates directly into clock speed differences. The P400 runs at a base clock of 1228 MHz and boosts to 1252 MHz, while the W2100 runs at 630 MHz base and 680 MHz boost. Nearly double the clock speed gives the P400 a massive throughput advantage per shading unit.

Memory technology also diverges sharply. The P400 uses GDDR5 memory clocked at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on a 64-bit bus, delivering 32.06 GB/s bandwidth. The W2100 uses DDR3 memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s. Despite having half the bus width, the P400 achieves higher bandwidth due to the faster memory type.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test shows a modest but consistent lead for the P400. Its score of 4249 outpaces the W2100’s 4093 by 3.8%. This result reflects the P400’s higher clock speeds and newer architecture, though the W2100’s larger number of shading units (320 versus 256) narrows the gap. OpenCL workloads often scale with raw shader count, so the W2100’s extra compute units partially compensate for its slower clocks.

The Geekbench Vulkan test reveals a more pronounced separation. The P400 scores 5119 against the W2100’s 4497, a 13.8% advantage. Vulkan’s lower overhead and better multi-threading benefit the P400’s newer Pascal architecture, which supports Vulkan 1.4 compared to the W2100’s Vulkan 1.2.170. The P400 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1) while the W2100 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1), indicating a more modern feature set.

Looking at the broader database context, the P400’s average benchmark score of 4684 places it at the 27th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and AMD Radeon R5 M320, both scoring 4657 (0.6% behind), and the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX at 4727 (0.9% ahead). The W2100’s average score of 4295 places it at the 25th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M at 4282 (0.3% behind), AMD Radeon Vega 3 at 4268 (0.6% behind), and NVIDIA Quadro K3000M at 4241 (1.3% behind). Both cards sit in the lower quarter of the performance spectrum, but the P400 maintains a consistent edge.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The P400 uses 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The W2100 uses 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The W2100 has more shading units and TMUs, but the P400 has double the ROPs. This gives the P400 a pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s versus the W2100’s 5.440 GPixel/s, a massive difference for rasterization-heavy tasks. The texture rate also favors the P400 at 20.03 GTexel/s versus 13.60 GTexel/s, despite the W2100 having more TMUs, due to the P400’s much higher clock speed.

FP32 compute performance strongly favors the P400 at 641.0 GFLOPS versus 435.2 GFLOPS. The P400 also supports FP16 at 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the W2100 has no recorded FP16 capability. Memory capacity is identical at 2 GB, but the type, bus width, and bandwidth all differ as described above. The P400 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the W2100 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Physical dimensions vary: the P400 is 150 mm long (5.9 inches), the W2100 is 168 mm long (6.6 inches). Both are single-slot, 69 mm tall (2.7 inches), and require no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 200 W for both. Display outputs differ: the P400 offers 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the W2100 offers 2x DisplayPort 1.2. Power consumption is close: the P400 draws 30 W, the W2100 draws 26 W. The P400 was released in February 2017, while the W2100 arrived in August 2014. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 delivers 641.0 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 435.2 GFLOPS for the AMD FirePro W2100, a 47% advantage for the P400.

Q: Do these cards support modern graphics APIs?

A: The P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W2100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the P400 has a higher DirectX feature level and newer Vulkan version.

Q: How do their memory systems compare?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of memory, but the P400 uses GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus delivering 32.06 GB/s, while the W2100 uses DDR3 on a 128-bit bus delivering 28.80 GB/s. The P400 achieves higher bandwidth despite a narrower bus.

Q: What do the benchmark scores mean relative to other GPUs?

A: The P400 sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 4684, close to the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4657, 0.6% behind). The W2100 sits at the 25th percentile with an average score of 4295, near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282, 0.3% behind).

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The P400 achieves 20.03 GPixel/s, while the W2100 manages 5.440 GPixel/s. This difference stems from the P400 having double the ROPs (16 versus 8) and a much higher clock speed.

Q: Are both cards suitable for a low-power build?

A: Yes. The P400 draws 30 W and the W2100 draws 26 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 200 W, making them easy to integrate into modest systems.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA Quadro P400 as the stronger performer in every recorded benchmark. It wins both head-to-head tests, with a 3.8% lead in OpenCL and a 13.8% lead in Vulkan. Its specifications support this outcome: higher clocks (1228 MHz base versus 630 MHz), higher FP32 throughput (641.0 GFLOPS versus 435.2 GFLOPS), higher pixel rate (20.03 GPixel/s versus 5.440 GPixel/s), and faster memory bandwidth (32.06 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s). The P400 also offers more modern API support and a newer manufacturing process.

The AMD FirePro W2100 retains some theoretical advantages in its specification sheet: more shading units (320 versus 256), more TMUs (20 versus 16), and a wider memory bus (128-bit versus 64-bit). However, these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins. The W2100’s lower clocks and older DDR3 memory hold it back. Its only practical benefit is a slightly lower power draw (26 W versus 30 W) and a later release date is not a factor since the P400 is newer.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life professional cards, the database suggests the P400 for any workload requiring compute performance, modern API support, or high pixel throughput. The W2100 might appeal to those needing a wider memory bus for specific legacy applications, but the benchmark evidence favors the P400 across the board. The P400’s average score of 4684 versus 4295 for the W2100, combined with its 27th versus 25th percentile placement, confirms a modest but consistent performance gap.