AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

The NVIDIA RTX A400 and AMD FirePro W4100 represent two distinct eras of workstation graphics, separated by a decade of architectural evolution. The benchmark data shows a decisive generational shift, with the RTX A400 delivering dramatically higher compute performance across every shared test, while the FirePro W4100 holds on only in the context of its own peer group.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are lopsided in favor of the NVIDIA RTX A400. In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A400 scores 22,844 points against the FirePro W4100’s 5,478 points, a 317% advantage. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a complete overhaul of compute capability. The gap stems from fundamental hardware differences: the RTX A400’s 768 shading units operate at a 1,417 MHz base clock with a 1,762 MHz boost, while the FirePro W4100’s 512 shading units have no listed base or boost clocks but deliver a peak FP32 rate of 645.1 GFLOPS. In raw floating-point throughput, the RTX A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS is over four times higher.

Vulkan performance tells a similar story. The RTX A400 scores 22,237 points, while the FirePro W4100 manages 6,496 points, a 242.3% delta. Vulkan is a modern API, and the RTX A400’s support for version 1.4 (against the FirePro’s 1.2.170) reflects its newer driver stack and hardware design. The FirePro W4100’s GCN 1.0 architecture, dating from 2014, was not built for the compute-heavy workloads that Vulkan enables. The RTX A400’s tensor cores and ray tracing cores—features entirely absent from the FirePro—also contribute to its higher scores in these synthetic tests.

Looking beyond the direct head-to-head, the RTX A400’s average benchmark score of 6,078 places it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4100’s average of 5,987 lands at the 34th percentile. Despite the massive performance gap in the two shared tests, their overall averages are remarkably close. This is because the RTX A400’s PassMark scores tell a more nuanced story. In DirectX 9, it scores 87; in DirectX 10, it drops to 32; in DirectX 11, it rises to 37; and in DirectX 12, it falls to 27. Its PassMark G3D score is 5,983, and its G2D score is 899, with a compute score of 2,557. These older API tests are not where the RTX A400 shines, but its modern feature set is designed for future-proofing rather than legacy compatibility.

The nearest rivals for each card underscore their respective positions. The RTX A400’s closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, which scores 6,077 (a 0% delta), followed by the Quadro P2000 at 6,049 (0.5% ahead), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6,117 (0.6% behind), and the AMD Radeon 760M at 6,019 (1% ahead). The FirePro W4100’s rivals include the Quadro K4000M at 5,986 (0% delta), the Quadro K4000 at 5,982 (0.1% ahead), and the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996 (0.2% behind). The data shows that the RTX A400 competes with entry-level mobile and integrated solutions, while the FirePro W4100 sits alongside older professional Quadro parts.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher FP32 compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 delivers 2.706 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD FirePro W4100 provides 645.1 GFLOPS. The RTX A400 is 317% faster in Geekbench OpenCL, which aligns with this four-fold raw compute advantage.

Q: Does the FirePro W4100 support ray tracing or tensor cores?

A: No. The FirePro W4100 has no RT cores or tensor cores listed in its specifications. The RTX A400 includes 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores, enabling hardware-accelerated ray tracing and AI workloads that the FirePro cannot handle.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W4100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. Although the FirePro has a wider bus, the RTX A400’s faster GDDR6 memory results in 50% more bandwidth.

Q: How do their DirectX capabilities compare?

A: The RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the FirePro W4100 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). The RTX A400 also supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the FirePro W4100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. This means the RTX A400 is compatible with modern graphics features like mesh shaders and variable rate shading.

Q: Which card has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The RTX A400’s average benchmark score is 6,078, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro W4100’s average is 5,987, at the 34th percentile. The difference is only 91 points, which is within the margin of error for its nearest rivals.

Q: Are both cards single-slot solutions with the same power draw?

A: Yes, both are single-slot cards with a 50 W TDP and no power connectors, requiring a 250 W power supply. However, the RTX A400 uses a PCIe 4.0 x8 interface, while the FirePro W4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for modern workloads: the NVIDIA RTX A400. Its 317% lead in OpenCL and 242.3% lead in Vulkan over the FirePro W4100 are decisive. For professionals running compute-heavy tasks like AI inference or rendering, the RTX A400’s tensor cores and ray tracing cores are indispensable, and its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory offers double the capacity of the FirePro’s 2 GB. The RTX A400 also supports DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, ensuring compatibility with current and upcoming software.

The AMD FirePro W4100, while end-of-life, still has a role for legacy systems. Its average benchmark score of 5,987 is close to the RTX A400’s 6,078, and its nearest rivals include the Quadro K4000 and K4000M, which are similarly aged. If a workstation requires a drop-in replacement for an older FirePro card with a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot and 128-bit memory bus, the W4100 remains a functional option. Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while lower than the RTX A400’s 96.00 GB/s, is sufficient for basic 2D and 3D visualization tasks.

However, the verdict is not balanced. The RTX A400 wins both shared benchmarks, offers a newer architecture, and has a higher percentile ranking. The FirePro W4100’s only advantage lies in its wider 128-bit memory bus and higher TMU count (32 vs. 24), but these do not translate into better benchmark results. For any new purchase, the RTX A400 is the data-backed recommendation. The FirePro W4100 should only be considered for maintaining an existing system where software compatibility with GCN 1.0 is a requirement.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every core specification. The RTX A400 uses an 8 nm Samsung process with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 43.5M per mm². The FirePro W4100 uses a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.2M per mm². The RTX A400’s modern process allows for significantly more transistors in a similar physical footprint.

Memory is another major divergence. The RTX A400 has 4 GB of GDDR6 at 1,500 MHz (12 Gbps effective) with a 64-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W4100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 at 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The RTX A400’s higher bandwidth comes from faster memory, not a wider bus. Shading units also differ: the RTX A400 has 768, while the FirePro has 512. The RTX A400 also has 24 TMUs and 16 ROPs, while the FirePro has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, giving the FirePro a higher texture mapping capability per clock.

The bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RTX A400 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the FirePro W4100. Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on the RTX A400 and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 on the FirePro. The RTX A400 is 163 mm long, while the FirePro is 171 mm long, and both are 69 mm high. The RTX A400 was released in 2024 and is active, while the FirePro was released in 2014 and is end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is generational. The RTX A400 is built on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture, specifically the GA107 chip, and belongs to the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation. The FirePro W4100 uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture with the Cape Verde chip, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation. Ampere is a 2020s design optimized for parallel compute, while GCN 1.0 is a 2010s design optimized for traditional graphics.

The RTX A400’s Ampere architecture includes dedicated ray tracing cores (6) and tensor cores (24), which are absent from the FirePro W4100. These hardware units enable real-time ray tracing and AI-accelerated features like DLSS, which are critical for modern visualization and simulation workloads. The FirePro has no such specialized hardware, relying entirely on its 512 shading units for all compute tasks.

Cache hierarchies differ, though the FACT PACK does not provide specific cache sizes. The RTX A400’s FP16 performance is 2.706 TFLOPS (1:1 ratio with FP32), while the FirePro has no listed FP16 capability. This 1:1 FP16 ratio in the RTX A400 is a hallmark of Ampere’s design, allowing it to double throughput for half-precision workloads. The FirePro’s GCN 1.0 architecture lacks this feature entirely.

The process node is another critical difference. The RTX A400’s 8 nm Samsung process allows for higher clock speeds and better power efficiency, evidenced by its 1,417 MHz base and 1,762 MHz boost clocks. The FirePro’s 28 nm TSMC process is older and less dense, with no listed clock speeds but a peak pixel rate of 10.08 GPixel/s, far below the RTX A400’s 28.19 GPixel/s. The texture rate is similarly lopsided: 42.29 GTexel/s for the RTX A400 versus 20.16 GTexel/s for the FirePro. Both cards have a 50 W TDP, but the RTX A400 delivers over four times the FP32 performance per watt, proof of its architectural efficiency.