AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data positions these two professional mobile/workstation GPUs as near-perfect equals in aggregate compute performance, yet their individual characteristics point to different use cases. The AMD FirePro W4100 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000M both sit at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, and their average benchmark scores are separated by a single point (5987 vs 5986, a delta of 0%). The only direct head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, shows the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M winning by 8.5% (5986 vs 5478). However, the AMD FirePro W4100 counters with a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6496, a test the NVIDIA card did not participate in. For users prioritizing OpenCL compute in legacy professional workflows, the Quadro K4000M holds a measurable edge. For those needing a broader API footprint including modern Vulkan support, the FirePro W4100 demonstrates capability the NVIDIA card cannot match in this dataset. The Quadro K4000M also offers double the memory (4 GB vs 2 GB) and significantly higher raw throughput metrics, making it the choice for memory-intensive tasks. The FirePro W4100, with its lower power draw (50 W vs 100 W) and four mini-DisplayPort outputs, suits multi-display setups in compact workstations. The data suggests the NVIDIA card wins on raw compute and memory capacity, while the AMD card wins on API versatility and display connectivity.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD FirePro W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler architecture, also from TSMC on 28 nm, but with vastly different physical characteristics: 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, resulting in a slightly lower density of 12.0M per mm². This means NVIDIA fit over twice the transistors into a die more than twice the size, targeting higher absolute performance rather than density efficiency.

The compute resource allocation diverges sharply. The FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Quadro K4000M more than doubles those counts: 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. This explains the NVIDIA card's higher pixel rate (12.02 GPixel/s vs 10.08 GPixel/s) and dramatically higher texture rate (48.08 GTexel/s vs 20.16 GTexel/s). FP32 performance follows the same pattern: the Quadro K4000M delivers 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS for the FirePro W4100, an 78.9% advantage for NVIDIA.

Memory architecture differs fundamentally as well. The FirePro W4100 uses a 128-bit bus with 2 GB of GDDR5, achieving 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro K4000M uses a 256-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5, reaching 89.60 GB/s. Both use GDDR5, but NVIDIA's wider bus and larger capacity give it a 40% bandwidth advantage and double the memory pool. Clock behavior also differs: the AMD card lists no base or boost clock in the data, while the NVIDIA card runs at a fixed 601 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks show the AMD card at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus NVIDIA's 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective), meaning AMD's smaller bus compensates with faster memory clock speeds.

The API support reveals a key architectural generational difference. The FirePro W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro K4000M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Vulkan versions are nearly identical, but the DirectX feature level differs (11_1 vs 11_0), indicating the GCN architecture has a slight edge in DirectX feature support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single direct comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986 against the AMD FirePro W4100's 5478. This represents an 8.5% victory for NVIDIA. That margin is substantial in professional rendering contexts where OpenCL acceleration is the primary compute path. The score reflects the NVIDIA card's superior raw compute resources: 960 shading units versus 512, and 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS. The 8.5% delta, however, is smaller than the raw FP32 gap (78.9%), suggesting that the FirePro W4100's GCN architecture extracts more efficiency per FLOP in this workload, or that memory bandwidth and latency characteristics partially offset the compute deficit.

The Geekbench Vulkan result adds nuance. The FirePro W4100 scores 6496 in Vulkan, which is higher than its own OpenCL score (5478) by 18.6%. This indicates the GCN architecture is particularly well-optimized for Vulkan's explicit compute model. The Quadro K4000M has no Vulkan benchmark entry in the data, making it impossible to compare directly. However, the FirePro W4100's Vulkan score of 6496 exceeds the NVIDIA card's OpenCL score of 5986 by 8.5%, suggesting that in Vulkan-centric workloads, the AMD card would likely outperform the NVIDIA card's OpenCL performance. This creates an interesting performance split: NVIDIA wins OpenCL, and AMD appears stronger in Vulkan based on its higher score in that API.

Looking at the broader rival context, both cards sit in a tight performance cluster. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (non-M) scores 5982, just 0.1% behind the K4000M. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 5996, 0.2% ahead. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M scores 6000, 0.2% ahead. This cluster of scores within 0.4% of each other suggests that at this performance tier, architectural differences matter less than workload-specific optimization.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on nearly every physical and electrical specification. Process node and foundry are identical (28 nm, TSMC), but transistor count differs massively: 1,500 million for AMD versus 3,540 million for NVIDIA. Die size follows: 123 mm² versus 294 mm². Transistor density is nearly identical (12.2M vs 12.0M per mm²), indicating both manufacturers achieved similar packing efficiency.

Clocks show a stark contrast. The FirePro W4100 lists no base or boost clock, while the Quadro K4000M runs at a flat 601 MHz. Memory clocks: AMD at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), NVIDIA at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). Memory configuration differs in size (2 GB vs 4 GB), bus width (128-bit vs 256-bit), and bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs 89.60 GB/s).

Compute resources differ by roughly 2x across the board. Shading units: 512 vs 960. TMUs: 32 vs 80. ROPs: 16 vs 32. Pixel rate: 10.08 vs 12.02 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 20.16 vs 48.08 GTexel/s. FP32: 645.1 vs 1,153.9 GFLOPS.

Power and physical specifications diverge significantly. The FirePro W4100 draws 50 W with a suggested PSU of 250 W, fits in a single slot, and requires no power connectors. The Quadro K4000M draws 100 W, uses an MXM Module form factor, also requires no power connectors, but has no suggested PSU listed. The FirePro W4100 measures 171 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the NVIDIA card has no dimensions listed. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 for AMD versus MXM-B (3.0) for NVIDIA, reflecting the latter's mobile-oriented module design.

Display outputs differ completely: the FirePro W4100 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro K4000M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." Release dates show the NVIDIA card launched on 2012-05-31, while the AMD card came later on 2014-08-12. Both are end-of-life. The AMD card's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and successor is Radeon Pro Polaris. The NVIDIA card's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and successor is Quadro Maxwell-M.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better OpenCL performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M wins the only head-to-head OpenCL test, scoring 5986 against the AMD FirePro W4100's 5478, an 8.5% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD card support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the FirePro W4100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and scores 6496 in the Geekbench Vulkan benchmark. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M supports Vulkan 1.2.175 but has no Vulkan benchmark score listed in the data.

Q: How do the memory capacities compare?

A: The Quadro K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the 2 GB on the FirePro W4100. The NVIDIA card also has a wider 256-bit bus versus 128-bit, giving it 89.60 GB/s bandwidth compared to 64.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card draws more power?

A: The Quadro K4000M has a 100 W TDP, twice the 50 W TDP of the FirePro W4100. The AMD card also lists a 250 W suggested PSU, while the NVIDIA card has none listed.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life. The Quadro K4000M released on 2012-05-31, and the FirePro W4100 released later on 2014-08-12.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: The FirePro W4100 averages 5987, and the Quadro K4000M averages 5986. The difference is 0%, placing them at the same 34th percentile of all GPUs.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA Quadro K4000M wins in OpenCL compute workloads. The 8.5% head-to-head victory in Geekbench OpenCL makes this the clear choice for applications that rely heavily on OpenCL acceleration. The card's 960 shading units and 1,153.9 GFLOPS FP32 performance provide substantially more raw compute headroom, and the 4 GB memory capacity with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth handles larger datasets without swapping. The 32 ROPs and 80 TMUs also make it stronger for texture-heavy rendering and pixel processing, as evidenced by the 48.08 GTexel/s texture rate versus 20.16 GTexel/s.

AMD FirePro W4100 wins in Vulkan-capable environments and multi-display setups. The Vulkan score of 6496, which exceeds the NVIDIA card's OpenCL score by 8.5%, indicates superior performance in Vulkan-based workloads. The four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs provide immediate multi-monitor capability without adapters, whereas the NVIDIA card's outputs depend on the portable device. The 50 W TDP makes it suitable for compact workstations with modest power budgets, and the single-slot design with no power connectors simplifies installation. The PCIe 3.0 x16 interface also allows deployment in standard desktop systems, unlike the MXM-B form factor of the NVIDIA card.

For legacy professional applications with OpenCL requirements, the Quadro K4000M is the safer choice. Its higher memory capacity and bandwidth, combined with the OpenCL benchmark win, suggest better performance in established CAD and DCC workflows. For modern compute environments leveraging Vulkan, or for multi-display workstation builds without dedicated power connections, the FirePro W4100 offers a compelling alternative. The data does not reveal a universal winner; it reveals two cards optimized for different workloads within the same performance class. The 0% average score difference between them underscores that the choice should depend on the specific application mix and system constraints rather than overall performance.