AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD FirePro W4100 is the clear winner in this comparison, taking the only recorded head-to-head benchmark victory. The data shows the FirePro W4100 is 5.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M in Geekbench OpenCL performance, scoring 5478 versus 5211. This is a modest but meaningful margin, and it is backed by a much more modern architecture and significantly better efficiency metrics. The FirePro W4100 should be the choice for anyone prioritizing compute performance per watt, modern feature support, and a compact desktop workstation profile. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is an older, mobile-first design with a higher power draw and fewer shading units, and its only benchmark result places it below the FirePro W4100. For a desktop workstation upgrade or a new build where the FirePro W4100 is an option, the data points squarely at AMD. The Quadro 4000M is only relevant for legacy mobile workstation repairs or proprietary MXM-based systems where the FirePro W4100 cannot physically be installed.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial. The AMD FirePro W4100 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture using the Cape Verde chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses the Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip, fabricated on a much older 40 nm process, also at TSMC. This process difference is a major factor in the efficiency and performance characteristics of each card.

The FirePro W4100 packs 1,500 million transistors into a die size of 123 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The Quadro 4000M has 1,950 million transistors on a much larger 332 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of only 5.9 million per mm². The AMD chip is far denser, which explains its lower power requirements and smaller physical footprint.

The FirePro W4100 features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The Quadro 4000M has fewer shading units at 336, but more TMUs at 56 and more ROPs at 32. The AMD card has a higher pixel rate of 10.08 GPixel/s compared to 6.65 GPixel/s for NVIDIA, but the Quadro 4000M has a higher texture rate at 26.60 GTexel/s versus 20.16 GTexel/s for the FirePro W4100. Raw FP32 compute is close: 645.1 GFLOPS for AMD versus 638.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA, a negligible difference that favors the FirePro W4100 slightly.

Memory configurations also differ. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the FirePro W4100 uses a 128-bit bus with a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro 4000M uses a wider 256-bit bus with a lower memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), achieving 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth. NVIDIA has the bandwidth advantage here, but it comes with a much higher power cost.

API support is another differentiator. The FirePro W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. This makes the FirePro W4100 more future-proof for compute applications that leverage Vulkan.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD FirePro W4100 scores 5478, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211. The delta is 5.1% in favor of AMD. This is a meaningful win, especially considering the Quadro 4000M has a higher memory bandwidth (80.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s) and more ROPs (32 versus 16). The FirePro W4100 overcomes those disadvantages through its higher pixel rate, more shading units, and more efficient GCN 1.0 architecture.

The average benchmark score in the database reinforces this result. The FirePro W4100 has an average benchmark score of 5987, while the Quadro 4000M sits at 5211. This is a difference of roughly 14.9% in favor of AMD, driven by the additional Vulkan benchmark where the FirePro W4100 scores 6496. The FirePro W4100 also holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs at 34, compared to 30 for the Quadro 4000M.

Looking at nearest rivals provides context for both cards. The FirePro W4100 sits essentially level with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, which scores 5986 with a delta of 0%, and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000, scoring 5982 with a delta of 0.1%. It is also within 0.2% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, both scoring 5996 and 6000 respectively. The Quadro 4000M, by contrast, is 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236), 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161), 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154), and 1.4% behind the NVIDIA GeForce 940M (5284). The FirePro W4100 competes in a higher performance tier than the Quadro 4000M despite both being entry-level workstation parts.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark with a score of 5478, which is 5.1% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M score of 5211.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M support Vulkan?

A: No, the Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed in the database. The AMD FirePro W4100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has higher memory bandwidth at 80.00 GB/s thanks to its 256-bit bus, compared to 64.00 GB/s on the FirePro W4100 with its 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has a TDP of 50 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has a TDP of 100 W. The FirePro W4100 draws half the power.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units, compared to 336 on the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M.

Q: What form factor does each GPU use?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 is a single-slot card with PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is an MXM module with an MXM-B (3.0) interface and display outputs that are portable device dependent.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4100 wins in compute performance, as shown by its 5.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and its 15% higher average benchmark score. It also wins decisively in efficiency, with a 50 W TDP versus 100 W for the Quadro 4000M, making it far better suited for compact workstations where heat and power are limited. The FirePro W4100 also wins on modern feature support: it has Vulkan 1.2.170 support, a newer DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level, and a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface that fits standard desktop slots. Its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it a strong choice for multi-monitor workstation setups. The single-slot, 171 mm length and 69 mm height profile means it can fit in small form factor systems.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins in memory bandwidth, delivering 80.00 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, which is 25% higher than the FirePro W4100's 64.00 GB/s. It also has a higher texture rate at 26.60 GTexel/s compared to 20.16 GTexel/s, and more ROPs (32 versus 16), which may help in certain fill-rate-bound workloads. However, those advantages did not translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data. The Quadro 4000M is also an MXM module, which means it is the only option for proprietary mobile workstations that use that form factor. Its 2 GB GDDR5 memory matches the FirePro W4100, but the older Fermi architecture and lack of Vulkan support make it a legacy part.

For users building or upgrading a desktop workstation, the FirePro W4100 is the obvious choice. The data shows a clear performance lead, better efficiency, and more modern API support. For those maintaining a mobile workstation that requires an MXM-B module, the Quadro 4000M is the only one of these two that fits, but its performance is lower and its power draw is double.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification category. The AMD FirePro W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses the GF104 chip with Fermi architecture. Process nodes differ significantly: the FirePro W4100 is on 28 nm, the Quadro 4000M on 40 nm.

Transistor counts and die sizes also differ. The FirePro W4100 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die with a density of 12.2 million per mm². The Quadro 4000M has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die with a density of 5.9 million per mm².

Memory clocks differ: the FirePro W4100 runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the Quadro 4000M runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). Memory bus width is 128-bit on AMD and 256-bit on NVIDIA. Bandwidth is 64.00 GB/s versus 80.00 GB/s.

Compute resources differ: the FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 4000M has 336 shading units, 56 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Pixel rates are 10.08 GPixel/s for AMD and 6.65 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rates are 20.16 GTexel/s for AMD and 26.60 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 compute is 645.1 GFLOPS for AMD and 638.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA.

Power and physical specifications differ substantially. The FirePro W4100 has a TDP of 50 W, no power connectors, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and a single-slot form factor measuring 171 mm by 69 mm. The Quadro 4000M has a TDP of 100 W, no power connectors, no suggested PSU listed, and is an MXM module with no length, height, or width recorded.

Bus interfaces and display outputs differ. The FirePro W4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16 and offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Quadro 4000M uses MXM-B (3.0) and its display outputs are portable device dependent.

API support differs: the FirePro W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro 4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but no Vulkan.

Release dates differ by roughly three years. The FirePro W4100 was released in August 2014, while the Quadro 4000M was released in February 2011. Both are end-of-life products. The FirePro W4100's predecessor is the FirePro Terascale and its successor is the Radeon Pro Polaris. The Quadro 4000M's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M.

The benchmark results are the final word: the FirePro W4100 wins the only head-to-head test, holds a higher average score, ranks higher in the overall GPU percentile, and does so at half the power draw.