AMD FirePro W4170M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and AMD FirePro W4170M are both end-of-life mobile workstation graphics solutions, but they represent distinctly different design eras. The data shows a single benchmark comparison, with the Quadro 4000M taking the win by a 3.5% margin in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 5211 against the FirePro W4170M’s 5034. While this is a narrow victory, the underlying specifications reveal that the two cards achieve this similar performance through very different architectural approaches, making the choice between them dependent on specific workload priorities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL compute benchmark, and the results are remarkably close. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211, while the AMD FirePro W4170M trails with a score of 5034. This translates to a 3.5% delta in favor of the Quadro 4000M, which is a slim but measurable edge in raw compute throughput. It is a single-data-point victory, so while the Quadro 4000M claims the win, the margin is well within the range of run-to-run variance that a builder might expect from mobile hardware.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape reinforces how tightly matched these two are. The Quadro 4000M’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M, which scores 5236 for a -0.5% delta, and the NVIDIA GeForce 940M, which scores 5284 for a -1.4% delta. On the AMD side, the FirePro W4170M sits next to the AMD Radeon R7 M340 and AMD Radeon R7 240, both scoring 5063 for a -0.6% delta, and the AMD Radeon R5 M430 at 5018 for a +0.3% delta. The picture is clear: both workstation cards are clustered within a narrow band of performance around the 5000-5300 mark. Their head-to-head result is essentially a tie in practical terms, with the Quadro 4000M eking out a slight advantage.

The performance parity is intriguing given the hardware differences. The Quadro 4000M achieves its score with 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs, running at a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) across a 256-bit bus. The FirePro W4170M counters with more shading units (384) but fewer TMUs (24) and ROPs (8), and it runs its memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on a narrower 128-bit bus. The net result is that the Quadro 4000M’s texture rate is higher at 26.60 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s, while the FirePro W4170M takes the pixel rate crown at 7.200 GPixel/s versus 6.650 GPixel/s. In floating-point performance, the FirePro W4170M edges ahead with 691.2 GFLOPS against the Quadro 4000M’s 638.4 GFLOPS, yet the benchmark still favors NVIDIA.

The Verdict

The data points to a nuanced verdict. For anyone looking at raw OpenCL compute, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is the nominal winner, presenting a 3.5% advantage over the FirePro W4170M. However, this is a marginal lead that will rarely be perceptible in real-world tasks. The FirePro W4170M, meanwhile, offers a higher pixel fill rate and more raw FP32 throughput, which could translate to better performance in specific pixel-bound or compute-heavy tasks that scale with shader count.

Choosing between these two should come down to the broader system context and driver preferences rather than the benchmark delta. If a builder is working with a platform that supports PCIe 3.0, the FirePro W4170M’s bus interface of PCIe 3.0 x8 offers a modern connectivity advantage over the Quadro 4000M’s MXM-B (3.0) interface. The FirePro W4170M also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, a feature the Quadro 4000M lacks entirely, which matters for any modern application leveraging Vulkan for compute or rendering. Conversely, the Quadro 4000M delivers higher texture throughput, which can be critical in texture-heavy visualization workloads. The verdict is effectively a split decision: the Quadro 4000M takes the benchmark win, but the FirePro W4170M is arguably the more future-proof option due to its newer architecture and API support.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins in scenarios that benefit from its higher texture fill rate. With 56 TMUs and a texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s, it is better equipped for tasks that involve heavy texel fetching, such as certain CAD model rendering or texture-mapped visualization. Its 256-bit memory bus, providing 80.00 GB/s of bandwidth, also gives it a theoretical advantage in bandwidth-sensitive workloads compared to the FirePro W4170M’s 64.00 GB/s. The 3.5% OpenCL benchmark victory also suggests it handles general compute workloads slightly better in practice.

The AMD FirePro W4170M wins in areas where its newer GCN architecture and higher shader count come into play. Its 384 shading units and peak FP32 throughput of 691.2 GFLOPS make it a stronger candidate for compute tasks that scale well with parallel shader execution. The higher pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s, backed by its 900 MHz boost clock, gives it an edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios. Additionally, the FirePro W4170M’s support for Vulkan 1.2.170 opens the door to modern graphics and compute APIs that the Quadro 4000M cannot access, making it the better choice for any workload that relies on Vulkan. Its smaller 77 mm² die and lower transistor count of 950 million also point to a more power-efficient design, though no TDP is listed for the FirePro W4170M to confirm.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211, which is 3.5% higher than the AMD FirePro W4170M’s score of 5034.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W4170M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the AMD FirePro W4170M supports Vulkan version 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M does not list Vulkan support in its specifications.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 4000M is 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X. The FirePro W4170M is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M430 and trails the AMD Radeon R7 M340 by 0.6%.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has a memory bandwidth of 80.00 GB/s, while the AMD FirePro W4170M has a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M and the AMD FirePro W4170M are listed as end-of-life products.

Q: What is the process node size for each chip?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses a 40 nm process, while the AMD FirePro W4170M is built on a smaller 28 nm process.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is built on the Fermi architecture, using the GF104 chip manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. This is an older design, reflected in its large die size of 332 mm² and high transistor count of 1,950 million. The Fermi architecture was known for its compute capabilities, but it lacks modern API support, offering only DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support listed.

In contrast, the AMD FirePro W4170M is based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Opal chip on a more advanced 28 nm process. This allows for a much smaller die size of 77 mm² while packing 950 million transistors, resulting in a far higher transistor density of 12.3M per mm² versus the Quadro 4000M’s 5.9M per mm². GCN 1.0 is a compute-focused architecture that natively supports modern APIs, including DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The architectural generational gap is also evident in the release dates, with the Quadro 4000M launching in February 2011 and the FirePro W4170M arriving in April 2015.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every key specification. The process node is a major differentiator: the Quadro 4000M uses a 40 nm process, while the FirePro W4170M uses a 28 nm process. This leads to a significant difference in die size and transistor count, with the NVIDIA chip being far larger and more complex. Clock speeds also differ, with the Quadro 4000M having no listed base or boost clock for the core, but a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), while the FirePro W4170M has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz, with a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Memory configurations are similar in capacity but different in layout: both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the Quadro 4000M uses a 256-bit bus for 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W4170M uses a 128-bit bus for 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The shading unit count favors AMD at 384 versus NVIDIA’s 336, but NVIDIA has more TMUs (56 vs. 24) and ROPs (32 vs. 8). Performance rates follow these hardware differences: the Quadro 4000M achieves a pixel rate of 6.650 GPixel/s and texture rate of 26.60 GTexel/s, while the FirePro W4170M achieves a pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s and texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is higher on the FirePro W4170M at 691.2 GFLOPS versus 638.4 GFLOPS. The TDP is listed as 100 W for the Quadro 4000M, but no TDP is provided for the FirePro W4170M. Finally, the bus interface differs, with the Quadro 4000M using MXM-B (3.0) and the FirePro W4170M using PCIe 3.0 x8.