AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA Quadro M500M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4100 and NVIDIA Quadro M500M are two end-of-life professional mobile/workstation GPUs that split their two benchmark victories almost perfectly down the middle. The data shows a clear fork: the NVIDIA Quadro M500M is the stronger OpenCL compute performer, while the AMD FirePro W4100 dominates in Vulkan workloads by a substantial margin. With an average benchmark score of 5987 for the AMD part versus 5604 for the NVIDIA part, the overall edge in aggregate performance belongs to the FirePro W4100, but the choice between them depends entirely on which API and workload profile matters more to the user.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M500M wins the OpenCL benchmark decisively. It scores 5986 in Geekbench OpenCL against the FirePro W4100's 5478, a delta of -8.5% from the AMD card's perspective. This means the NVIDIA part is roughly 9% faster in OpenCL compute tasks, a category that covers a wide range of professional applications including scientific simulations, video encoding, and many CAD rendering workflows. The M500M's advantage here is consistent with its higher FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS compared to the FirePro's 645.1 GFLOPS.

The AMD FirePro W4100 wins the Vulkan benchmark with overwhelming force. It scores 6496 in Geekbench Vulkan versus the Quadro M500M's 5222, a delta of 24.4% in AMD's favor. This is not a marginal victory — the FirePro W4100 is nearly a quarter faster in Vulkan workloads. Vulkan is increasingly relevant for modern graphics applications, game engines, and GPU-accelerated compute that leverages this cross-platform API. For any user whose software stack has adopted Vulkan, the AMD card is the clear choice based on this benchmark data.

The wins are split one-to-one, but they are not equal in magnitude. The NVIDIA card's OpenCL lead is moderate at 8.5%, while AMD's Vulkan lead is nearly three times larger at 24.4%. When weighing the two benchmarks equally, the AMD part's larger victory margin drives its higher average benchmark score of 5987 versus 5604 for the M500M. The data suggests that if a workload uses Vulkan, the FirePro W4100 provides a considerably better experience, while the M500M's OpenCL advantage is more modest by comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The AMD FirePro W4100 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture using the Cape Verde chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M uses Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process, but that is where the manufacturing similarities end. AMD's chip contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter. NVIDIA's GM108S is smaller and leaner, with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, achieving a higher density of 13.2 million per square millimeter.

The execution resources differ significantly in configuration. The FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The Quadro M500M has fewer of each: 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite having fewer execution units, the NVIDIA chip achieves higher FP32 performance (863.2 GFLOPS) than AMD (645.1 GFLOPS) because of its higher clock speeds. The M500M runs at a base clock of 1029 MHz with a boost up to 1124 MHz, whereas the FirePro W4100's clock speeds are not specified in the data pack. This clock advantage allows NVIDIA to outperform AMD's larger shader count.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. The AMD FirePro W4100 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro M500M uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s — a massive bandwidth deficit of nearly 4.5x. The memory clock rates tell the same story: AMD's memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while NVIDIA's runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). This bandwidth disparity is the single largest architectural gap between the two, and it explains why the AMD card can achieve higher Vulkan scores despite lower raw compute throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test provides the NVIDIA Quadro M500M with its only benchmark victory. The M500M scores 5986 against the FirePro W4100's 5478, giving NVIDIA an 8.5% advantage. This result aligns with the FP32 compute figures: the M500M delivers 863.2 GFLOPS, which is 33.8% higher than the FirePro's 645.1 GFLOPS. However, the benchmark score difference is smaller than the raw compute difference would suggest, likely because OpenCL performance is also influenced by memory bandwidth and driver efficiency. The M500M's lower bandwidth of 14.40 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s appears to cap its real-world advantage, preventing it from fully translating its compute lead into benchmark scores.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the result entirely. The AMD FirePro W4100 scores 6496, while the Quadro M500M manages only 5222, a 24.4% margin for AMD. This is the most decisive result in the comparison. The FirePro's massive memory bandwidth advantage likely plays a crucial role here, as Vulkan workloads often stress memory throughput more heavily than pure compute. Additionally, the FirePro W4100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the M500M supports Vulkan 1.4 — though the newer API version does not appear to help NVIDIA in this particular benchmark. AMD's GCN architecture, despite being older, proves more capable in this specific test.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the two cards sit in different performance neighborhoods. The FirePro W4100's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5986 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (0.1% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000 (-0.2% delta). The Quadro M500M's nearest rivals are the AMD FirePro M4000 at 5537 (1.2% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8790M at 5691 (-1.5% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508 (1.7% delta). These clusters confirm that the FirePro W4100 competes with higher-tier mobile workstation parts, while the M500M sits closer to entry-level mobile graphics solutions.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has an average benchmark score of 5987, which is 6.8% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro M500M's 5604.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 scores 6496 in Geekbench Vulkan, which is 24.4% higher than the Quadro M500M's score of 5222.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro M500M have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes, the M500M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5986 versus 5478 for the FirePro W4100, an 8.5% advantage.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, compared to the Quadro M500M's 14.40 GB/s from DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two chips?

A: The NVIDIA GM108S has a higher transistor density at 13.2 million per square millimeter, while the AMD Cape Verde chip has 12.2 million per square millimeter.

Q: Which GPU has better percentiles relative to all GPUs?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 sits at the 34th percentile, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M sits at the 32nd percentile, meaning the AMD card outperforms a slightly larger share of the overall GPU market.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear division of use cases. For OpenCL-centric professional workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M is the stronger option. Its 863.2 GFLOPS FP32 performance and 8.5% OpenCL benchmark lead make it the better choice for software that relies on this API. It also consumes less power at 30 W TDP versus the FirePro's 50 W, which matters for mobile workstation battery life and thermal management.

For Vulkan-based applications, the AMD FirePro W4100 is the definitive pick. Its 24.4% Vulkan benchmark advantage is the largest performance gap in this comparison, and its 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth provides a substantial architectural edge for bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The FirePro W4100 also offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, enabling multi-display setups that the portable-device-dependent M500M cannot match.

Users who prioritize overall aggregate performance should choose the AMD FirePro W4100, as its average benchmark score of 5987 is 6.8% higher than the M500M's 5604. The AMD card's higher 34th percentile ranking versus the NVIDIA's 32nd percentile reinforces this conclusion. However, the M500M's lower 30 W TDP and higher FP32 throughput make it attractive for compute-focused users who do not require Vulkan support and value efficiency.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The AMD FirePro W4100 uses GCN 1.0 architecture with a Cape Verde chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M uses Maxwell with a GM108S chip. The FirePro has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, compared to the M500M's 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro's FP32 throughput is 645.1 GFLOPS, while the M500M achieves 863.2 GFLOPS.

Memory configurations are starkly different: the FirePro W4100 has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the M500M has 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro runs at a 50 W TDP with a single-slot form factor and PCIe 3.0 x16 interface; the M500M runs at 30 W TDP in an MXM Module form factor with MXM-A (3.0) interface. Display outputs differ as well: the FirePro offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the M500M is marked as portable device dependent.

API support varies, with the FirePro supporting DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the M500M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The transistor counts are 1,500 million for AMD versus 1,020 million for NVIDIA, on die sizes of 123 mm² and 77 mm² respectively. The FirePro W4100 was released on 2014-08-12, while the M500M came later on 2016-04-26. Neither card has a listed launch MSRP.