AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two professional mobile and workstation graphics solutions. The AMD FirePro W4100 takes a decisive win in the Vulkan workload, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M counters with a clear advantage in OpenCL. Each card therefore appeals to different usage patterns depending on the API and compute model a particular application relies upon.

For OpenCL-centric workflows, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the stronger choice. Its recorded OpenCL score of 6154 places it 11% ahead of the AMD FirePro W4100's 5478 in the same test. This is a substantial margin in a compute API that remains common in professional rendering, simulation, and video processing. The K3100M also holds a higher average benchmark score overall, at 5154 across all its recorded tests, though that figure is dragged down by its comparatively weak Metal result.

The AMD FirePro W4100 wins the Vulkan comparison outright. Its 6496 Vulkan score is 18.5% higher than the K3100M's 5484, making it the better option for Vulkan-based applications and game engines that leverage this modern API. The W4100 also posts a higher average across its own two recorded benchmarks, at 5987, which reflects more consistent performance between the two APIs it supports.

The distinction is not merely about raw speed; it is about API direction. The W4100 appears better positioned for forward-looking Vulkan workloads, while the K3100M retains strength in the more established OpenCL ecosystem. The data suggests that users should examine which API their primary software utilizes before choosing between these two.

Architecture Differences

The two cards represent fundamentally different design philosophies from their respective manufacturers. The AMD FirePro W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. Both are built on the same node, but the similarities end there.

Transistor counts reveal a major difference in complexity. The K3100M packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, while the W4100 uses only 1,500 million transistors on a much smaller 123 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical, at 12.2M per mm² for the AMD chip and 12.0M per mm² for the NVIDIA chip, which makes sense given the shared manufacturing node. The K3100M simply uses a much larger die to deliver more hardware resources.

The compute configuration differs significantly. The K3100M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The W4100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In every category, the NVIDIA chip has double the texture units and ROPs, and 50% more shading units. The theoretical peak rates reflect this: the K3100M reaches 1,084.4 GFLOPS FP32, 45.18 GTexel/s texture fill, and 11.30 GPixel/s pixel fill, while the W4100 achieves 645.1 GFLOPS, 20.16 GTexel/s, and 10.08 GPixel/s.

Memory configuration also favors the K3100M substantially. The NVIDIA card has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD card has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The K3100M also uses a higher base clock of 706 MHz with a boost of 706 MHz, while the W4100 has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz or 4 Gbps effective.

The form factors diverge as well. The W4100 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card measuring 171 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and no power connectors. The K3100M is an MXM module using the MXM-B (3.0) interface, with display outputs described as portable device dependent. The W4100 carries a 50 W TDP and a suggested 250 W power supply, while the K3100M has a 75 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed.

API support differences are minor but notable. Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan, but the W4100 specifies DirectX 12 (11_1) while the K3100M specifies DirectX 12 (11_0). The Vulkan versions differ slightly, with the W4100 at 1.2.170 and the K3100M at 1.2.175. Neither card supports FP16 or ray tracing cores or tensor cores, according to the recorded data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Only two benchmarks appear in the head-to-head comparison, and each card wins one. The OpenCL test goes to the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M with a score of 6154 against the AMD FirePro W4100's 5478, a delta of negative 11% from the AMD card's perspective. This is the larger absolute margin in points, with a difference of 676 points. The K3100M's advantage in shading units, texture units, memory bandwidth, and raw FP32 throughput appears to translate directly into OpenCL compute performance.

The Vulkan test reverses the outcome. The AMD FirePro W4100 scores 6496 against the K3100M's 5484, giving the AMD card an 18.5% advantage. The point difference here is 1012 points, which is actually larger than the OpenCL gap. This is notable because the W4100 has fewer shading units, fewer TMUs, fewer ROPs, less memory, and lower theoretical peak rates across the board. Yet in Vulkan, it outperforms the more heavily specced NVIDIA card by a wide margin.

The result suggests that raw hardware resources do not tell the whole story. Driver maturity, API implementation efficiency, and architectural scheduling differences can matter as much as transistor counts. The Kepler architecture in the K3100M was designed before Vulkan existed, while GCN 1.0 in the W4100 has received Vulkan support that appears to leverage the hardware more effectively in this specific workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the W4100's average score of 5987 places it at the 34th percentile among all GPUs in the database. The K3100M's average of 5154 places it at the 30th percentile. The W4100's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M with an average score of 5986 and a delta of 0%, essentially a statistical tie. The K3100M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M260X with 5161 and a delta of negative 0.1%.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6154 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to the AMD FirePro W4100's 5478, giving the NVIDIA card an 11% advantage.

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 scores 6496 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 18.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M's 5484.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 102.4 GB/s bandwidth. The W4100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these cards?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has a 50 W TDP, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has a 75 W TDP.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has 768 shading units, while the AMD FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has an average benchmark score of 5987, placing it at the 34th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has an average of 5154, placing it at the 30th percentile.

The Verdict

The data supports different conclusions depending on the intended workload. For Vulkan-based applications, the AMD FirePro W4100 is clearly the better choice, with an 18.5% advantage over the K3100M in that specific benchmark. The W4100 also has a higher average benchmark score overall at 5987 versus 5154, and it sits at a higher percentile rank among all GPUs.

For OpenCL-based workflows, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M takes the lead with an 11% advantage in that test. The K3100M also offers substantially more memory capacity and bandwidth, which could matter for large datasets even if the synthetic benchmarks do not fully capture that advantage. Its 4 GB frame buffer is double the W4100's 2 GB, and its 102.4 GB/s bandwidth is 60% higher.

The W4100's smaller die, lower TDP, and PCIe form factor make it suitable for desktop workstation installations where space and power are constrained. The K3100M's MXM form factor targets mobile workstations, and its higher TDP of 75 W reflects the additional hardware resources it carries.

Users who prioritize modern API support and consistent performance across multiple benchmarks should lean toward the AMD FirePro W4100. Users who need maximum OpenCL compute performance and larger memory capacity should consider the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M. Neither card dominates the other completely, and the choice ultimately depends on the specific software environment and API requirements of the user's workflow.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards in the recorded data:

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4100 | NVIDIA Quadro K3100M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Cape Verde | GK104 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Generation | FirePro GCN (Wx100) | Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 3,540 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 294 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 12.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 706 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 706 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 768 |

| TMUs | 32 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.08 GPixel/s | 11.30 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.16 GTexel/s | 45.18 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 645.1 GFLOPS | 1,084.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 171 mm (6.7 inches) | Not listed |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2014-08-12 | 2013-07-22 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Quadro Fermi-M |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | Quadro Maxwell-M |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 5478 | 6154 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 6496 | 5484 |

| Geekbench Metal | Not recorded | 3823 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 5987 | 5154 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 34 | 30 |