AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA T600 Comparison

The NVIDIA T600 drastically outperforms the AMD FirePro W4100 across every recorded benchmark, establishing a generational and performance gulf that is simply too wide for the older workstation card to bridge. In the two head-to-head tests available in the database, the T600 wins both, delivering a commanding lead that underscores how far GPU architecture has progressed between 2014 and 2021.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most lopsided victory comes in the Geekbench OpenCL compute test. Here the NVIDIA T600 scores 27,875, while the AMD FirePro W4100 manages only 5,478. This represents a delta of 408.9% in favor of the T600. For context, the FirePro W4100 is not simply slower by a small margin; it trails by more than a factor of five in raw compute throughput as measured by this cross-platform benchmark. The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, though the disparity is slightly less extreme. The T600 posts a score of 25,580 against the W4100's 6,496, yielding a delta of 293.8%. Again, the T600 nearly quadruples the output of the older card.

The database records zero wins for the AMD FirePro W4100 in any head-to-head comparison. The T600 wins both available tests, a clean sweep that leaves no ambiguity about which GPU delivers superior raw performance. The scale of these victories is noteworthy. A difference of over 400% in OpenCL is not a marginal improvement; it is a complete architectural replacement. In practical terms, any task that leverages either OpenCL or Vulkan compute will be processed many times faster on the T600. The Vulkan result is particularly telling for modern software stacks, as Vulkan is increasingly the API of choice for professional visualization and compute workloads. The T600's near four-fold advantage indicates that it can handle these workloads fluidly where the W4100 would become a bottleneck.

Architecture Differences

The performance gap originates from two completely different design philosophies separated by seven years of process technology and microarchitecture. The NVIDIA T600 uses the TU117 chip built on a 12 nm TSMC process, containing 4,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 23.5 million per square millimeter. It belongs to the Turing architecture, also known as the Quadro Turing (Tx000) generation, and was released in April 2021.

In contrast, the AMD FirePro W4100 is built on the Cape Verde chip using a 28 nm TSMC process, housing just 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die with a density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. It is based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, part of the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation, and launched in August 2014. The fabrication node alone explains much of the efficiency and performance difference: 12 nm is simply a more refined, denser process than 28 nm.

Core counts also favor the T600. It features 640 shading units, 40 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The W4100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. The T600 can therefore process more fragments and compute operations per clock. The raw computational ceiling further reinforces this: the T600 delivers 1.709 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, whereas the W4100 provides 645.1 GFLOPS. The T600 also supports FP16 compute at 3.418 TFLOPS via a 2:1 ratio, a capability the W4100 does not offer at all.

Memory configurations are not remotely comparable. The T600 comes with 4 GB of GDDR6 memory operating at 10 Gbps effective, on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 160.0 GB/s. The W4100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory at 4 Gbps effective on an identical 128-bit bus, but this yields only 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The T600 provides both double the memory capacity and 2.5 times the memory bandwidth, which directly benefits large dataset manipulation and multi-app workflows.

Clock speeds reflect the generational efficiency gains. The T600 has a base clock of 735 MHz and a boost clock of 1335 MHz. The W4100 database entry lists no base or boost clocks for the core, but its memory runs at 1000 MHz compared to the T600's 1250 MHz. The T600's pixel rate is 42.72 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 53.40 GTexel/s. The W4100 manages only 10.08 GPixel/s and 20.16 GTexel/s respectively. The fill rate advantage for the T600 is substantial: over four times the pixel throughput and more than 2.5 times the texture throughput.

Power and connectivity show a tighter margin. The T600 has a TDP of 40 W, while the W4100 draws 50 W, meaning the faster card is also more power-efficient. Both are single-slot designs with no power connectors, though the W4100 suggests a 250 W PSU versus the T600's 200 W suggestion. Display outputs are similar in number but different in standard: the T600 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the W4100 uses four mini-DisplayPort 1.2. This gives the T600 support for higher resolutions and higher refresh rate displays via DisplayPort 1.4a.

API support also diverges. The T600 supports DirectX 12_1, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The W4100 supports DirectX 12_1 (with a note of 11_1 capability), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GPU compute and rendering stacks on the T600 are more modern, particularly the Vulkan revision which is a full major version ahead.

The Verdict

The data points to an unequivocal choice. Choose the NVIDIA T600 for any professional workstation task that demands GPU compute, modern API support, higher memory capacity, or lower power draw. Its 408.9% lead in OpenCL and 293.8% lead in Vulkan over the AMD FirePro W4100 mean that users who need to run GPU-accelerated rendering, simulation, or machine learning inference will see dramatically shorter processing times. The T600 also provides double the VRAM (4 GB versus 2 GB) and more than double the memory bandwidth, which is critical for handling larger textures, models, or datasets without spilling to system memory. Its lower TDP of 40 W versus 50 W means it can fit into thermally constrained systems or those with limited power budgets.

The AMD FirePro W4100 should only be considered for legacy systems where driver compatibility with older GCN-optimized software is mandatory and where the compute workload is already known to be minimal. The W4100's 2 GB frame buffer and 64.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth will struggle with modern multi-monitor 4K arrangements or any task that touches compute. The database does not record a single benchmark win for the W4100, and its average benchmark score of 5,987 places it at the 34th percentile among all GPUs. The T600 sits at the 39th percentile with an average score of 7,035, roughly 17.5% higher overall, but the head-to-head deltas show the gap is far more pronounced in specific compute-heavy APIs.

For a new workstation build, the T600 is the only rational selection. For an existing system with a W4100, upgrading to the T600 would yield a transformative improvement in compute capability, memory headroom, and power efficiency.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA T600 than the AMD FirePro W4100 in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA T600 scores 27,875 versus the FirePro W4100's 5,478, making the T600 408.9% faster in that benchmark.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W4100 beat the NVIDIA T600 in any benchmark?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the AMD FirePro W4100 across the two head-to-head tests (Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan). The T600 wins both.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA T600 has 160.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the AMD FirePro W4100 has 64.00 GB/s. The T600 offers 2.5 times the bandwidth.

Q: What are the power draw differences between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA T600 has a TDP of 40 W, and the AMD FirePro W4100 has a TDP of 50 W. The T600 is the lower-power option despite being significantly faster.

Q: Which card supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA T600 supports Vulkan 1.4, whereas the AMD FirePro W4100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The T600 supports a newer major revision of the API.

Q: How do the GPU compute performances compare?

A: The NVIDIA T600 delivers 1.709 TFLOPS of FP32 compute. The AMD FirePro W4100 delivers 645.1 GFLOPS. The T600 is also capable of 3.418 TFLOPS in FP16, a feature the W4100 lacks entirely.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA T600 wins in every scenario that involves compute-heavy workloads. In Geekbench OpenCL, which is representative of general-purpose GPU compute, the T600 is 408.9% ahead. In Geekbench Vulkan, which indicates performance in modern graphics and compute APIs, the T600 is 293.8% ahead. For applications that demand high memory bandwidth for large datasets, the T600's 160.0 GB/s is clearly superior to the W4100's 64.00 GB/s. For users needing 4 GB of VRAM to hold complex scenes or multi-layer textures, the T600 delivers while the W4100 is limited to 2 GB. The T600 also wins in power efficiency, drawing 40 W to the W4100's 50 W, and in display connectivity, offering DisplayPort 1.4a over the W4100's 1.2.

The AMD FirePro W4100 wins only in the context of legacy compatibility. It is a 2014-era GCN 1.0 card that may be the only supported option in older, specialized software stacks that have not been updated to support Turing or later architectures. It also has a longer physical length (171 mm) and height (69 mm) which could be relevant in systems with specific mechanical constraints, though the T600's dimensions are unlisted. The W4100 uses GDDR5 memory instead of GDDR6, which may be irrelevant for performance but does not require a system board with the power delivery of a modern card. No benchmark data suggests any performance advantage for the W4100.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA T600 | AMD FirePro W4100 |

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

| Architecture | Turing | GCN 1.0 |

| Process Node | 12 nm | 28 nm |

| Chip | TU117 | Cape Verde |

| Transistors | 4,700 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 200 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 23.5M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Shading Units | 640 | 512 |

| TMUs | 40 | 32 |

| ROPs | 32 | 16 |

| Memory Size | 4 GB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR6 | GDDR5 |

| Effective Memory Clock | 10 Gbps | 4 Gbps |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.0 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| FP32 Compute | 1.709 TFLOPS | 645.1 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Compute | 3.418 TFLOPS (2:1) | Not listed |

| Pixel Rate | 42.72 GPixel/s | 10.08 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 53.40 GTexel/s | 20.16 GTexel/s |

| TDP | 40 W | 50 W |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | 250 W |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | April 2021 | August 2014 |