GPU Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4170M and NVIDIA Quadro 4000 are both end-of-life professional mobile graphics solutions, yet they represent two very different technological eras. The data places them in nearly identical performance territory, with the AMD part holding a razor-thin edge in the only head-to-head benchmark available. This analysis explores what separates these two legacy GPUs, focusing strictly on the specifications and benchmark results provided.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures raw compute throughput in a synthetic workload. In this single metric, the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4979. The delta is 1.1 percent, marking the AMD part as the winner with a narrow but definitive margin. To put this in perspective, both scores land within a hair of each other when measured against the broader GPU landscape: the FirePro W4170M sits at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro 4000 sits at the 29th percentile. The performance gap between them is smaller than the gap between either card and its own closest rival.

Examining the nearestRivals data reveals how tight this contest is. The FirePro W4170M's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M340, which scores 5063, a delta of -0.6 percent from the FirePro's score. Meanwhile, the Quadro 4000's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M360, scoring 4931, which is 1 percent behind the Quadro. Interestingly, both cards share a common rival in the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics, which scores 4998. The FirePro W4170M leads that integrated GPU by 0.7 percent, while the Quadro 4000 trails it by 0.4 percent. These margins are almost negligible in real-world terms, but the data consistently places the FirePro W4170M slightly ahead in compute workloads.

The wins tally reflects this: the AMD FirePro W4170M claims 1 win in the head-to-head comparison, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has 0 wins. However, the 1.1 percent delta is well within the noise of typical benchmark variance, suggesting that the two cards are effectively equivalent in raw OpenCL performance. The question then becomes whether other factors, architecture, memory subsystem, or feature support, tip the balance in specific use cases.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD FirePro W4170M is the nominal winner for compute performance. Its 5034 Geekbench OpenCL score edges out the Quadro 4000's 4979 by 1.1 percent, and it holds a slightly higher percentile rank (30 vs 29). For users whose primary concern is raw OpenCL throughput, the data points to the AMD part as the better choice, albeit by a margin so small that it may be imperceptible in practice.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000, however, offers a different set of advantages that the benchmark score does not capture. It has a much wider memory bus (256 bit vs 128 bit), delivering 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth compared to the FirePro's 64.00 GB/s. This is a 40 percent advantage in memory bandwidth, which could prove decisive in bandwidth-bound workloads even if the compute scores are nearly identical. The Quadro 4000 also has 32 ROPs versus 8 on the AMD part, and 32 TMUs versus 24, suggesting it may handle pixel-heavy and texture-heavy tasks more efficiently.

The verdict from the data is nuanced: for pure compute, the FirePro W4170M wins on points. For memory-intensive or rasterization-oriented tasks, the Quadro 4000's architecture suggests it could outperform despite its lower compute score. The percentile difference (30 vs 29) is too small to declare a clear overall victor. Buyers should weigh whether their workloads favor the FirePro's higher shading throughput or the Quadro's superior memory subsystem.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing generations. The AMD FirePro W4170M is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 950 million transistors into a die size of 77 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The chip is codenamed Opal and belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation, released in April 2015.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 uses the Fermi architecture, built on a much older 40 nm process, also at TSMC. Its GF100 chip contains 3,100 million transistors spread across a massive 529 mm² die, giving a transistor density of just 5.9 million per square millimeter. This is less than half the density of the AMD part, reflecting the older manufacturing node. The Quadro 4000 was released in November 2010, making it roughly four and a half years older in release date terms.

The compute resources differ significantly. The FirePro W4170M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the Quadro's higher ROP and TMU counts indicate a different workload balance. The FirePro's peak FP32 throughput is 691.2 GFLOPS, compared to 486.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro, a 42 percent advantage for AMD in theoretical compute. The pixel rates are nearly identical (7.200 GPixel/s vs 7.600 GPixel/s), but the texture rates diverge: 21.60 GTexel/s for AMD versus 15.20 GTexel/s for NVIDIA.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance based on the benchmark data?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 1.1 percent higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 4000's score of 4979. The AMD part also has a higher theoretical FP32 throughput at 691.2 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has a 256-bit memory bus with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD FirePro W4170M uses a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the Quadro's memory operates at 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) compared to the FirePro's 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the manufacturing process differences?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M is built on a 28 nm process with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 uses a 40 nm process with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The AMD part achieves a transistor density of 12.3M / mm² versus 5.9M / mm² for NVIDIA.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed.

Q: What are the physical differences between the two cards?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M is an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is a Single-slot card measuring 241 mm x 111 mm x 20 mm, requiring a 1x 6-pin power connector and a 300 W suggested PSU. The Quadro also has a 142 W TDP.

Q: How does the Quadro 4000 compare to its own nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 4000's closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M360, which scores 4931, 1 percent lower. It also trails the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998) by 0.4 percent, and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018) by 0.8 percent. Interestingly, it leads the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4970) by 0.2 percent.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4170M wins in compute-centric tasks. Its 691.2 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is 42 percent higher than the Quadro 4000's 486.4 GFLOPS, and its shading unit count of 384 versus 256 gives it a clear advantage in parallel compute workloads. The texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s also exceeds the Quadro's 15.20 GTexel/s, making the AMD part better suited for texture-heavy shader work. The 1.1 percent Geekbench OpenCL win confirms this trend in practice.

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins in memory-bound and rasterization-heavy scenarios. Its 256-bit memory bus provides 89.86 GB/s of bandwidth versus 64.00 GB/s, a 40 percent advantage that matters for large textures, framebuffer operations, or any workload that saturates memory throughput. The 32 ROPs (four times the FirePro's 8) and 32 TMUs (versus 24) suggest superior pixel fill and multisampling performance. The pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s slightly edges out the AMD part's 7.200 GPixel/s, reinforcing this strength.

The data implies a clear split: the FirePro W4170M is the compute specialist, while the Quadro 4000 is the bandwidth and rasterization workhorse. For OpenCL or GPGPU-style workloads, choose AMD. For tasks that stress memory bandwidth or require high fill rates, the NVIDIA card's architecture gives it an edge that the single benchmark score does not fully capture.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights only the fields where the two GPUs diverge, based strictly on the provided data:

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4170M | NVIDIA Quadro 4000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Fermi |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |

| Transistors | 950 million | 3,100 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 529 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 5.9M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 825 MHz | N/A |

| Boost Clock | 900 MHz | N/A |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 702 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 89.86 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 256 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.200 GPixel/s | 7.600 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 15.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 691.2 GFLOPS | 486.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | N/A | 142 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | N/A | 300 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | N/A |

| Dimensions | N/A | 241 mm x 111 mm x 20 mm |

| Release Date | 2015-04-22 | 2010-11-01 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Mobility | Quadro FX Tesla |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Mobile | Quadro Kepler |

| Launch MSRP | N/A | 1,199 USD |

The two cards share identical memory size (2 GB), memory type (GDDR5), OpenGL support (4.6), production status (end-of-life), and manufacturer (TSMC foundry). The data shows two generations apart in release date and manufacturing process, yet the benchmark results place them within 1.1 percent of each other, evidence of how architecture efficiency can compensate for process node advantages.