AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it produces a decisive result. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 scores 6698 points, while the AMD FirePro W4100 scores 5478 points. That is a 22.3% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a substantial gap that places the two entry-level workstation-oriented cards in different performance tiers despite their similar memory capacities.

Looking at the broader database context, the GT 1010 sits at the 38th percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro W4100 sits at the 34th percentile. This four-point percentile gap reflects the same ordering as the head-to-head score, but the raw numbers tell a slightly more nuanced story. The GT 1010's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M370, which scores 6764 and trails the GT 1010 by only 1%, and the AMD Radeon R7 M460, which scores 6612 and is 1.3% behind. The AMD Radeon HD 7730M scores 6581, 1.8% behind, while the AMD FirePro M5100 leads the GT 1010 by 1.9% with a score of 6830. The GT 1010 is therefore clustered tightly with a group of mid-range mobile and small desktop parts, all within roughly two percentage points of each other.

The FirePro W4100's nearest rivals are even more tightly grouped. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986, essentially tied with the W4100 at a 0% delta. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 5982, just 0.1% behind. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 5996, 0.2% ahead, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M scores 6000, also 0.2% ahead. The W4100 is thus surrounded by a four-way knot of GPUs spanning a mere 0.3% total spread, which makes its 22.3% deficit to the GT 1010 all the more striking.

The OpenCL result is the only head-to-head test recorded, so the database shows a clean sweep: one win for the GT 1010, zero wins for the FirePro W4100. The average benchmark score across all recorded tests reinforces this ordering. The GT 1010 has an average of 6698, identical to its single OpenCL result. The FirePro W4100's average is 5987, pulled down by its OpenCL score of 5478 but partially offset by a Vulkan score of 6496, which is not present in the GT 1010's records. That Vulkan result is worth noting: it shows the W4100 can reach a substantially higher performance level in a different API, though it still falls short of the GT 1010's OpenCL number.

Where Each One Wins

The GT 1010 wins in raw OpenCL compute throughput, and the margin is not trivial. A 22.3% advantage in the database's primary benchmark means that for general-purpose GPU compute workloads exposed through OpenCL, the NVIDIA card should complete tasks noticeably faster. The GT 1010 also holds a percentile ranking edge, 38th versus 34th, which suggests it sits above the W4100 in the database's overall performance distribution.

The FirePro W4100 has one clear area of advantage: the Vulkan API. Its recorded Vulkan score of 6496 exceeds its own OpenCL score by roughly 18.6%, and it approaches the GT 1010's OpenCL result even though the two cards have no direct Vulkan comparison in the database. For users whose software stack favors Vulkan, the W4100's recorded performance is meaningfully better than its OpenCL showing. However, with no Vulkan benchmark recorded for the GT 1010, the database cannot confirm whether the NVIDIA card would match or exceed that number.

In terms of display capabilities, the W4100 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which makes it the clear choice for multi-monitor professional setups. The GT 1010 provides one DVI and one mini-HDMI 2.0 output, a configuration suited to simpler single-display or dual-display arrangements. The W4100's four-output design is a functional win for workstation contexts where multiple simultaneous displays are standard.

The GT 1010 wins on power efficiency. Its TDP is 30 W versus the W4100's 50 W, and its suggested PSU is 200 W versus 250 W. For low-profile or small-form-factor builds, the GT 1010's lower power draw and reduced system power requirement give it an operational advantage. The GT 1010 also has a shorter physical footprint at 147 mm compared to the W4100's 171 mm, which improves case compatibility. The W4100, however, uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the GT 1010 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, so the AMD card has four times the bus bandwidth available for data transfer, which can matter for workloads that move large datasets between CPU and GPU.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 scores 6698 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 22.3% higher than the AMD FirePro W4100's 5478.

Q: Does the FirePro W4100 have any benchmark where it performs better?

A: The W4100 records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6496, which is substantially higher than its own OpenCL score, but no Vulkan result is recorded for the GT 1010, so a direct comparison in that API is not possible from the database.

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

A: The GT 1010 sits within 1.9% of four nearby GPUs, ranging from the AMD FirePro M5100 at 6830 (1.9% ahead) to the AMD Radeon HD 7730M at 6581 (1.8% behind). The W4100 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5986, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982, the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000, all within a 0.3% spread.

Q: Which card supports more displays?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 has one DVI and one mini-HDMI 2.0 output.

Q: What are the power requirements of each card?

A: The GT 1010 has a TDP of 30 W and a suggested PSU of 200 W. The W4100 has a TDP of 50 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has a 128-bit memory bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 has a 64-bit bus and 48.06 GB/s bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification category. The GT 1010 is built on a 14 nm process at Samsung, while the W4100 uses a 28 nm process at TSMC. Transistor counts are close: 1,800 million for the GT 1010 versus 1,500 million for the W4100, but die sizes diverge sharply. The GT 1010's die is 74 mm², giving it a transistor density of 24.3 million transistors per mm², while the W4100's die is 123 mm² with a density of 12.2 million per mm².

Clock behavior differs in the database. The GT 1010 lists a base clock of 1228 MHz and a boost clock of 1468 MHz, whereas the W4100 has no base or boost clock recorded. Memory clocks also differ: the GT 1010 runs at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, while the W4100 runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective. The W4100 compensates with a 128-bit bus versus the GT 1010's 64-bit bus, resulting in 64.00 GB/s bandwidth for the AMD card versus 48.06 GB/s for the NVIDIA card.

Shader resources heavily favor the W4100. It has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, double the GT 1010's 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite this, the GT 1010 posts higher pixel and texture rates: 11.74 GPixel/s and 23.49 GTexel/s versus the W4100's 10.08 GPixel/s and 20.16 GTexel/s. The GT 1010 also leads in FP32 compute at 751.6 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS.

Physical and interface specifications differ as well. The GT 1010 is 147 mm long, while the W4100 is 171 mm long and 69 mm tall. Both are single-slot and require no power connectors. The GT 1010 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, the W4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are one DVI and one mini-HDMI 2.0 on the GT 1010, versus four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 on the W4100. API support also diverges: the GT 1010 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170; both support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The GT 1010 uses the GP108 chip with NVIDIA's Pascal architecture, part of the GeForce 10 generation, with a 14 nm process from Samsung. The W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip with AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the FirePro GCN Wx100 generation, on a 28 nm process from TSMC. These are two fundamentally different design philosophies from different eras. Pascal is a later, more power-efficient architecture, reflected in the GT 1010's 30 W TDP and 14 nm density advantage. GCN 1.0 is an earlier design with a higher raw resource count but lower efficiency, reflected in the W4100's 50 W TDP.

The GT 1010's transistor density of 24.3 million per mm² versus the W4100's 12.2 million per mm² is a direct consequence of the process node difference. The Pascal chip crams more transistors into a smaller area, which explains how it achieves higher clocks, 1228 MHz base and 1468 MHz boost, while consuming less power. The W4100 has no listed clocks, but its GCN architecture relies on a wider design: twice the shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, plus a 128-bit memory bus.

Despite having half the shading resources, the GT 1010 produces higher FP32 throughput, 751.6 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS, and faster pixel and texture rates. This is a case where the newer architecture's higher clock speeds overcome the older architecture's wider layout. The GT 1010 also supports a newer DirectX feature level, 12_1 versus 11_1, and a newer Vulkan version, 1.4 versus 1.2.170, though both cards support OpenGL 4.6.

Neither card features ray tracing cores or tensor cores, as both predate those hardware additions in their respective lineups. The GT 1010's memory runs at 1502 MHz with 6 Gbps effective, but the narrow 64-bit bus limits bandwidth to 48.06 GB/s. The W4100's slower 1000 MHz memory clock is paired with a 128-bit bus to reach 64.00 GB/s, giving the AMD card a 33% bandwidth advantage. That bandwidth edge, combined with double the ROPs and TMUs, makes the W4100 potentially better suited to memory-heavy tasks, even though the GT 1010 wins the compute benchmarks. The release timeline reflects the architectural gap: the W4100 launched in August 2014 as part of the FirePro GCN generation, while the GT 1010 arrived in January 2021, near the end of the Pascal lineup's life. Both are now end-of-life products.