AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a decisive performance gap between the AMD FirePro W4100 and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000. In the two shared benchmark tests, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins both, with the AMD FirePro W4100 failing to secure a single victory. The head-to-head comparison is stark: the Quadro M4000 leads by 71.3% in Geekbench OpenCL and by 73.6% in Geekbench Vulkan.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD FirePro W4100 scores 5,478 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 posts 19,118 points. That is a massive 13,640-point gap, translating to the Quadro M4000 being roughly 3.5 times faster in raw compute throughput. The delta percentage of -71.3% indicates the FirePro W4100 is less than a third of the Quadro M4000's performance in this workload.

Geekbench Vulkan tells a similar story. The FirePro W4100 manages 6,496 points, but the Quadro M4000 reaches 24,640 points. The margin here is 18,144 points, with the Quadro M4000 delivering roughly 3.8 times the Vulkan performance. The -73.6% delta confirms that the FirePro W4100 trails by nearly three-quarters in this API-specific test.

These results align with the average benchmark scores recorded in the database. The AMD FirePro W4100 holds an average benchmark score of 5,987, while the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 averages 5,467. Interestingly, the FirePro W4100 actually has a higher average score despite losing both head-to-head tests, which reflects the different benchmark suites each card was tested with. The Quadro M4000's average includes its older DirectX 9 score of 113, DirectX 11 score of 49, and DirectX 12 score of 26, which drag down its overall average. The FirePro W4100 was only tested on Geekbench OpenCL and Vulkan, both of which are more modern and compute-heavy workloads.

Looking at percentile rankings, the FirePro W4100 sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M4000 ranks at the 32nd percentile. Despite the Quadro M4000's overwhelming victory in shared tests, its broader benchmark coverage pulls its percentile slightly lower. The FirePro W4100's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5,986 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5,982 (0.1% delta), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996 (-0.2% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6,000 (-0.2% delta). The Quadro M4000's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5,483 (-0.3% delta), the AMD Radeon 610M at 5,444 (0.4% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5,501 (-0.6% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5,508 (-0.7% delta).

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two professional workstation cards is substantial. The AMD FirePro W4100 is built on the Cape Verde chip using GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, part of the Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) generation. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarity ends there.

The FirePro W4100 packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2 million per mm². The Quadro M4000 houses 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, with a density of 13.1 million per mm². The Quadro M4000 has over 3.4 times the transistor count and a die that is more than three times larger, which directly explains its significant compute advantage.

Shader core counts differ dramatically. The FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. That equates to 3.25 times more shading units, 3.25 times more TMUs, and 4 times more ROPs for the Quadro M4000.

Memory configuration is another major divider. The FirePro W4100 comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth at a 1000 MHz memory clock (4 Gbps effective). The Quadro M4000 offers 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth at a 1502 MHz memory clock (6 Gbps effective). The Quadro M4000 has 4 times the memory capacity and exactly 3 times the memory bandwidth.

Fill rates and compute throughput follow the same pattern. The FirePro W4100 achieves a pixel rate of 10.08 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 20.16 GTexel/s, with FP32 performance of 645.1 GFLOPS. The Quadro M4000 reaches 49.47 GPixel/s and 80.39 GTexel/s, with FP32 at 2.573 TFLOPS. The Quadro M4000 delivers roughly 4.9 times the pixel fill rate, 4 times the texture fill rate, and approximately 4 times the single-precision floating-point performance.

API support differs as well. The FirePro W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer DirectX feature level and more recent Vulkan version on the Quadro M4000 reflect its later release date.

Power requirements diverge significantly. The FirePro W4100 has a TDP of 50 W, requires no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The Quadro M4000 has a TDP of 120 W, requires one 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU. Both are single-slot cards, but the Quadro M4000 is physically larger: 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high, versus the FirePro W4100 at 171 mm (6.7 inches) long and 69 mm (2.7 inches) high.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 versus the AMD FirePro W4100's 5,478, a 71.3% lead.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Quadro M4000 offers 192.3 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the FirePro W4100 provides 64.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The Quadro M4000 has exactly 3 times the bandwidth.

Q: What are the FP32 compute capabilities?

A: The Quadro M4000 delivers 2.573 TFLOPS, while the FirePro W4100 manages 645.1 GFLOPS. The Quadro M4000 is approximately 4 times faster in single-precision floating-point work.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The FirePro W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), which is a newer feature level.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The FirePro W4100 has a 50 W TDP with no power connectors, while the Quadro M4000 has a 120 W TDP and requires one 6-pin connector. The suggested PSU is 250 W for the FirePro and 300 W for the Quadro.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5, while the FirePro W4100 has 2 GB of GDDR5. That is a 4-to-1 ratio in favor of the Quadro M4000.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the clear performance winner. It dominates both shared benchmarks, has 4 times the memory capacity, 3 times the memory bandwidth, and roughly 4 times the FP32 compute throughput. It also supports a newer DirectX feature level and a more recent Vulkan version.

However, the AMD FirePro W4100 has advantages that matter in specific contexts. Its 50 W TDP with no power connector makes it far easier to install in systems with limited power delivery. Its shorter length (171 mm versus 241 mm) allows it to fit in more compact chassis. It also holds a higher percentile ranking (34th versus 32nd) and a higher average benchmark score (5,987 versus 5,467), although this is skewed by the different test sets.

Workloads that rely on OpenCL or Vulkan compute will strongly favor the Quadro M4000. Users who need maximum memory capacity for large datasets should choose the Quadro M4000. Users with strict power or space constraints may find the FirePro W4100 sufficient, but they should expect significantly lower compute performance.

The data does not support choosing the FirePro W4100 for raw performance. The Quadro M4000 is the superior card in every head-to-head comparison recorded. The only reasons to select the FirePro W4100 are its lower power draw, smaller physical footprint, and the fact that it does not require a power connector. For any compute-intensive professional workload, the Quadro M4000 is the data-backed choice.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4100 | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 |

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

| Chip | Cape Verde | GM204 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Generation | FirePro GCN (Wx100) | Quadro Maxwell (Mx000) |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 1,664 |

| TMUs | 32 | 104 |

| ROPs | 16 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.08 GPixel/s | 49.47 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.16 GTexel/s | 80.39 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 645.1 GFLOPS | 2.573 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 120 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Length | 171 mm (6.7 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

| Release Date | 2014-08-12 | 2015-06-28 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Quadro Kepler |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | Quadro Pascal |