AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data delivers a clear, if not overwhelming, verdict: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 takes both contested workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, the K4000 scores 6,816 against the FirePro W4100's 5,478, a decisive 19.6% advantage. That is not a marginal win; it is a substantial gap that will manifest in compute-heavy tasks. The Vulkan results are closer, with the K4000 posting 6,964 versus the W4100's 6,496, a 6.7% edge. While still a victory for NVIDIA, this narrower margin suggests the AMD card is more competitive in modern API workloads, though it still trails.

Looking at the average benchmark score, the two cards are essentially neck-and-neck: the W4100 averages 5,987, while the K4000 sits at 5,982. The deltaPct between them is a mere 0.1%, which is within the noise of any benchmark run. This aggregate parity contrasts sharply with the head-to-head results, where the K4000 wins both tests. The explanation lies in the composition of the averages — the K4000 also has a Geekbench Metal result of 4,166, which drags down its mean, while the W4100 has no Metal submission. For OpenCL and Vulkan specifically, the NVIDIA card is the stronger performer.

The nearest rival data reinforces this picture. The W4100's closest competitor is the Quadro K4000M, which scores 5,986 — just one point below the AMD card. The desktop K4000 is 0.1% behind the W4100 in average score, meaning that in aggregate terms, these are effectively identical products. Interestingly, the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server appears in both cards' rival lists with a score of 5,996, a 0.2% delta from the W4100 and a 0.2% delta from the K4000. This is a reminder that synthetic averages can flatten out dramatic architectural differences.

The wins tally is unambiguous: 0 for the AMD FirePro W4100, 2 for the NVIDIA Quadro K4000. No benchmark in the provided data favors the AMD card. For users prioritizing raw OpenCL throughput or Vulkan performance, the K4000 is the statistically superior choice. For those who weigh the Metal workload — which only the K4000 has a score for — the NVIDIA card again extends its lead. The data does not support any scenario where the W4100 comes out ahead in a direct comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has an average benchmark score of 5,987, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 5,982. The difference is a negligible 0.1%, effectively a statistical tie.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL?

A: The K4000 wins Geekbench OpenCL with 6,816 points versus the W4100's 5,478, a 19.6% margin. This is the largest performance difference between the two cards in any benchmark.

Q: Does the AMD card win any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head tests provided, the K4000 wins both Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The W4100's win count is 0 out of 2 comparisons.

Q: What is the Vulkan performance difference?

A: The K4000 scores 6,964 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the W4100 scores 6,496. This yields a 6.7% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a smaller gap than in OpenCL.

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

A: The W4100's closest rival is the Quadro K4000M with an average score of 5,986 (0% delta), while the K4000's closest rival is the same K4000M at 5,986 (-0.1% delta). Both cards also sit within 0.2% of the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server's 5,996 average.

Q: Does the K4000 have any unique benchmark results?

A: Yes, the K4000 has a Geekbench Metal score of 4,166. The W4100 has no Metal benchmark result in its data. This gives the K4000 an additional data point that the AMD card lacks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two professional GPUs is substantial. The AMD FirePro W4100 is built on Cape Verde silicon using the GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 employs the GK106 chip with the Kepler architecture, from the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but that is where the fabrication similarities end.

The transistor counts tell a story of divergent design philosophies. AMD packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. NVIDIA, meanwhile, crams 2,540 million transistors into a 221 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip is both physically larger and more transistor-rich, which correlates with its higher compute throughput.

Compute resources differ sharply. The K4000 fields 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 ROPs, while the W4100 has 512 shaders, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These numbers translate directly into the K4000's higher pixel rate (12.96 GPixel/s versus 10.08 GPixel/s) and texture rate (51.84 GTexel/s versus 20.16 GTexel/s). The FP32 performance gap is even more pronounced: the K4000 delivers 1,244.2 GFLOPS against the W4100's 645.1 GFLOPS — nearly double the compute throughput.

Memory architectures also diverge. The W4100 uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The K4000 widens the bus to 192 bits, pairs it with 3 GB of GDDR5, and achieves 134.8 GB/s — more than twice the bandwidth. The memory clocks reflect this: the AMD card runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA card runs at 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective). For memory-bound workloads, the K4000's advantage is substantial.

API support shows subtle differences. Both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the W4100 hits DirectX 12 (11_1) while the K4000 is at DirectX 12 (11_0). Vulkan support is marginally better on the NVIDIA card (1.2.175 versus 1.2.170). Neither card has ray tracing or tensor cores, as expected for this generation. The bus interface also differs: the W4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the K4000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. Memory capacity is one of the most visible distinctions: the W4100 offers 2 GB, while the K4000 provides 3 GB. This extra capacity, combined with a wider 192-bit bus versus 128-bit, gives the NVIDIA card a clear memory advantage. Bandwidth follows suit at 134.8 GB/s for the K4000 versus 64.00 GB/s for the W4100 — a 110% difference.

Compute units are another major differentiator. The K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, compared to the W4100's 512 shaders, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The FP32 throughput of 1,244.2 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS represents a 93% advantage for NVIDIA. Pixel and texture rates are similarly lopsided: 12.96 GPixel/s versus 10.08 GPixel/s, and 51.84 GTexel/s versus 20.16 GTexel/s, respectively.

Power and physical specs also differ. The W4100 is rated at 50 W TDP with no power connectors, while the K4000 draws 80 W and requires a single 6-pin connector. Both share a 250 W suggested PSU and single-slot design. The cards diverge in length: the W4100 measures 171 mm (6.7 inches) versus the K4000's 241 mm (9.5 inches). Height also differs, at 69 mm (2.7 inches) for AMD and 111 mm (4.4 inches) for NVIDIA.

Display outputs are another clear split. The W4100 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the K4000 offers one DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. This makes the AMD card better suited for multi-display setups out of the box. The bus interface also differs, with PCIe 3.0 x16 on the W4100 and PCIe 2.0 x16 on the K4000.

Architecture and physical metrics round out the differences. The W4100 uses a 123 mm² die with 1,500 million transistors (12.2M/mm²), while the K4000 uses a 221 mm² die with 2,540 million transistors (11.5M/mm²). Release dates differ by roughly six months: the W4100 launched on 2014-08-12, while the K4000 launched on 2013-02-28. Both are end-of-life products, but their predecessors and successors differ — the W4100 follows FirePro Terascale and precedes Radeon Pro Polaris, while the K4000 follows Quadro Fermi and precedes Quadro Maxwell.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for most workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the stronger card. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks, offering a 19.6% lead in OpenCL and a 6.7% lead in Vulkan. Its FP32 throughput of 1,244.2 GFLOPS is nearly double the W4100's 645.1 GFLOPS, and its memory bandwidth of 134.8 GB/s more than doubles the AMD card's 64.00 GB/s. For compute-heavy professional tasks — rendering, simulation, data processing — the K4000 is the clear choice.

The AMD FirePro W4100 does have its strengths. Its 50 W TDP is significantly lower than the K4000's 80 W, making it a more power-efficient option. It also requires no power connectors, simplifying installation in systems with limited PSU headroom. The four mini-DisplayPort outputs provide native quad-display support, which the K4000 cannot match without adapters or additional hardware. And its shorter 171 mm length makes it easier to fit into compact chassis.

However, the benchmark results do not favor the W4100 in any direct comparison. Its average score of 5,987 is essentially identical to the K4000's 5,982, but that parity is driven by the K4000's lower Metal score dragging its mean. In the two workloads where both cards have matching benchmark results, the K4000 wins outright. Users who need OpenCL performance should choose the K4000 without hesitation.

The choice ultimately depends on workload priorities. For users who require maximum compute throughput, higher bandwidth, and more memory, the K4000 is the statistically superior option. For users who prioritize power efficiency, multi-display capabilities, and a compact form factor, the W4100 offers compelling advantages — but they must accept a measurable performance deficit in OpenCL and Vulkan. Given that the K4000 also has the larger transistor count and higher pixel/texture rates, it is the more capable all-around workstation GPU in this comparison. The W4100's 0 wins versus the K4000's 2 wins is the decisive statistic.