AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA Quadro P2000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and AMD FirePro W4100 are both end-of-life professional workstation cards, but they belong to different technological eras. The P2000, built on the Pascal architecture and released in 2017, is a significantly more modern and powerful part than the W4100, which relies on the older GCN 1.0 architecture from 2014. Benchmark data confirms a substantial performance gulf between the two, with the P2000 dominating in every measured category.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most direct comparison comes from the two shared benchmark tests available in the data. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20125, while the AMD FirePro W4100 manages only 5478. This represents a massive 267.4% advantage for the P2000, meaning it delivers over three and a half times the raw compute throughput in this workload. The gap is nearly identical in Geekbench Vulkan, where the P2000 posts 23566 against the W4100's 6496, a 262.8% lead. These are not marginal wins; they indicate a generational leap in processing capability.

The P2000 also holds a decisive edge in the average benchmark score across all tests. Its average is 6049, while the W4100 averages 5987. While this difference is only about 1%, it is worth remembering the W4100 only has two benchmark results available, both of which are the Geekbench tests where it is heavily outclassed. The P2000 has nine benchmark scores, including a strong Passmark G3D result of 6956 and a Passmark GPU Compute score of 2933. The W4100's lack of data in these DirectX and compute-focused tests limits the scope of the comparison, but the available evidence points to a clear winner.

Looking at percentile rankings, the P2000 sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the W4100 is in the 34th percentile. This is a surprisingly narrow gap given the head-to-head results, but it reflects the fact that both are professional workstation cards that are far from the top of the overall performance hierarchy. The P2000's nearest rivals in terms of average score are the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 (6077, -0.5% delta) and the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078, -0.5% delta), showing it sits in a performance class with entry-level mobile and low-profile desktop parts. The W4100's closest competitors are the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, 0.1% delta), placing it in the same bracket as much older Kepler-based professional cards.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 is the superior product in every measurable way. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks decisively, has a higher average benchmark score, and offers significantly more processing power. The P2000's 3.031 TFLOPS of FP32 performance dwarfs the W4100's 645.1 GFLOPS, a difference of nearly 4.7 times. For any task that relies on raw shader or compute performance, the P2000 is the only rational choice.

The AMD FirePro W4100, while an older and less capable part, is not without merit. Its 50 W TDP is lower than the P2000's 75 W, and it is a smaller card physically. However, these advantages are minor compared to the performance deficit. The W4100's 2 GB of VRAM and 64 GB/s of bandwidth are also limiting factors for modern professional workloads, especially compared to the P2000's 5 GB and 140.2 GB/s. Unless the absolute lowest power draw is a critical requirement, the P2000's performance advantages make it the clear winner.

For users considering a used or legacy workstation, the choice is straightforward. The P2000 offers a dramatically better experience in GPU-accelerated applications, from rendering to simulation. The W4100 is only suitable for very basic display tasks or workloads that are not performance-sensitive. The data shows a 267% lead in OpenCL and a 262% lead in Vulkan, which translates to real-world time savings that are impossible to ignore.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 wins in virtually every scenario that involves computation. Its advantages in OpenCL and Vulkan benchmarks make it the superior choice for general-purpose GPU computing, including tasks like video encoding, physics simulation, and machine learning inference. The P2000's higher texture rate (94.72 GTexel/s vs 20.16 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (59.20 GPixel/s vs 10.08 GPixel/s) also make it much better suited for 3D rendering and viewport work in CAD or DCC applications. The larger 5 GB frame buffer allows for larger textures and scenes without running out of memory.

The AMD FirePro W4100's only potential wins are in niche areas not covered by the benchmark data. Its lower 50 W TDP means it generates less heat and may be suitable for passively cooled or space-constrained systems. Its smaller physical footprint (171 mm vs 196 mm length) could be an advantage in compact chassis. The W4100 also uses mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which may be preferable in some cabling setups. However, these are physical or power characteristics, not performance wins. The data shows zero benchmark victories for the W4100.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 scores 20125, which is 267.4% higher than the AMD FirePro W4100's score of 5478.

Q: What is the difference in average benchmark scores?

A: The P2000 has an average benchmark score of 6049, while the W4100 averages 5987. The P2000 is ahead by roughly 1%.

Q: How much faster is the P2000 in Vulkan performance?

A: The P2000 scores 23566 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to 6496 for the W4100, a lead of 262.8%.

Q: Do both cards support the same level of DirectX?

A: No. The P2000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the W4100 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). This indicates the P2000 supports a more advanced feature set.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The P2000 has 140.2 GB/s of bandwidth, more than double the W4100's 64.00 GB/s. The P2000 also has 5 GB of memory versus 2 GB on the W4100.

Q: Are both cards end-of-life products?

A: Yes, both the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 and the AMD FirePro W4100 have a production status of "End-of-life".

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The NVIDIA Quadro P2000 uses the GP106 chip based on the Pascal architecture, manufactured on a 16 nm process at TSMC. This newer process allows for a much higher transistor density of 22.0M / mm², packing 4,400 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. In contrast, the AMD FirePro W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process. This results in a lower transistor density of 12.2M / mm², with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The P2000's newer architecture and manufacturing process are the primary reasons for its massive performance advantage.

The P2000 also has a much more robust feature set. It supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The P2000 has 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 40 ROPs, compared to the W4100's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This doubling of core resources is a direct result of the architecture generation gap. The P2000 also has a significantly higher FP32 throughput at 3.031 TFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS, and it supports FP16 compute, while the W4100 has no listed FP16 capability.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two cards differ in almost every key area. The most obvious difference is memory: the P2000 offers 5 GB of GDDR5 on a 160-bit bus, while the W4100 offers 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. This translates to a bandwidth of 140.2 GB/s for the P2000 versus 64.00 GB/s for the W4100. The P2000's memory clock is 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), while the W4100's is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Clock speeds for the GPU cores are only listed for the P2000, with a base of 1076 MHz and a boost of 1480 MHz; the W4100's core clocks are not provided in the data.

Power consumption is another differentiator. The P2000 has a TDP of 75 W, while the W4100 is rated at 50 W. Both are single-slot cards with no power connectors and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The physical dimensions differ, with the P2000 being longer at 196 mm (7.7 inches) and taller at 111 mm (4.4 inches), compared to the W4100 at 171 mm (6.7 inches) and 69 mm (2.7 inches). Display outputs also vary: the P2000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, while the W4100 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface. The P2000 was released on 2017-02-05, and the W4100 on 2014-08-12.