AMD FirePro W4170M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole recorded head-to-head benchmark between the AMD FirePro W4170M and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that measurement, the AMD FirePro W4170M scored 5034 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M scored 4241 points. This gives the AMD part a decisive 18.7% advantage in compute performance.

That 18.7% margin is significant in the context of these two mobile workstation GPUs. The AMD FirePro W4170M lands in the 30th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M sits slightly lower at the 25th percentile. The delta between their percentile rankings aligns with the raw score gap: the AMD card is positioned one tier higher in overall database standing.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card helps contextualize these scores. The AMD FirePro W4170M sits in a tight cluster: it is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018), 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998), and 0.6% behind both the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063) and the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063). This suggests the W4170M is essentially at parity with a group of entry-level desktop and mobile Radeon parts, with performance differences well within noise margins.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M, by contrast, sits in a slightly lower cluster. It is 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268), 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282), 1.3% behind the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295), and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193). The K3000M's score of 4241 places it near the bottom of this group, trailing three of its four nearest rivals.

The head-to-head result is unambiguous: the AMD FirePro W4170M wins the only benchmark where both cards appear. The 18.7% lead is not a marginal edge but a substantial one, roughly equivalent to the gap between the K3000M and a card nearly a full performance tier above it. In numerical terms, the W4170M's 5034 score versus the K3000M's 4241 represents a difference of 793 points, which is larger than the spread between the K3000M and its closest rival.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the AMD FirePro W4170M wins in every measurable category. It holds the only head-to-head victory, with 1 win against 0 for the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M. The OpenCL compute score is the sole benchmark in the database for both cards, so this is a clean sweep.

The AMD card's advantages extend beyond the raw compute score. Its pixel rate is 7.200 GPixel/s versus 7.848 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card, meaning the K3000M actually has a slight edge in pixel throughput. However, the texture rate tells a different story: the W4170M delivers 21.60 GTexel/s, while the K3000M reaches 31.39 GTexel/s. In terms of raw geometry and texture processing, the NVIDIA part is stronger. Yet the OpenCL score, which reflects general compute workloads, favors AMD.

For floating-point performance, the AMD card outputs 691.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the NVIDIA card outputs 753.4 GFLOPS. Again, the NVIDIA part has a nominal advantage in theoretical FP32 throughput, but the benchmark result shows the AMD card winning in practice. This discrepancy suggests that the W4170M's architecture extracts more real-world compute efficiency from its lower theoretical peak.

Memory bandwidth is another area where the NVIDIA card has a hardware advantage on paper: 89.60 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s for the AMD part, owing to a 256-bit bus versus 128-bit. The K3000M also has more shading units (576 versus 384), more texture mapping units (48 versus 24), and more ROPs (32 versus 8). Despite these specification advantages, the benchmark outcome favors the AMD card.

The practical interpretation is that for compute workloads measured by OpenCL, the AMD FirePro W4170M is the stronger performer. For workloads that rely heavily on pixel fill or texture throughput, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M's larger ROP and TMU counts could theoretically provide benefits, but the database contains no benchmark evidence to confirm this. The only recorded victory goes to AMD.

The Verdict

The data indicates a clear winner: the AMD FirePro W4170M outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M in the only benchmark where both are measured. With an 18.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a higher percentile ranking (30th versus 25th), the AMD card is the better choice for compute-oriented tasks.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M does have structural advantages that are worth noting. It carries 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, compared to 384, 24, and 8 respectively for the AMD card. Its memory bus is twice as wide (256-bit versus 128-bit), and it offers higher bandwidth (89.60 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s). Its FP32 throughput of 753.4 GFLOPS exceeds the AMD card's 691.2 GFLOPS. However, none of these theoretical advantages translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data.

For buyers or system integrators choosing between these two end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs, the AMD FirePro W4170M is the safer bet based on measured performance. The K3000M might appeal to those who prioritize memory bandwidth or pixel throughput, but the database does not contain any test results that demonstrate a K3000M victory. The verdict, strictly from the numbers, is that the AMD FirePro W4170M is the better performer in OpenCL compute, and it holds the only head-to-head win.

The NVIDIA card's release date is earlier (May 2012 versus April 2015 for the AMD card), but release timing does not factor into performance scores. Both are end-of-life products, so longevity is not a differentiator. The AMD card's successor is the Radeon Pro Mobile series, while the NVIDIA card's successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M series, but neither successor has benchmark data in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M wins with a score of 5034, compared to 4241 for the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M, an 18.7% advantage.

Q: How does the AMD FirePro W4170M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018), 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998), and 0.6% behind both the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063) and the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063).

Q: What are the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M's closest competitors according to the database?

A: The nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268, 0.6% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282, 1% ahead), the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, 1.3% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti (4193, where the K3000M is 1.2% ahead).

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, while the AMD FirePro W4170M has 384.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M offers 89.60 GB/s over a 256-bit bus, while the AMD FirePro W4170M offers 64.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: What are the FP32 compute figures for each card?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M delivers 691.2 GFLOPS, and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M delivers 753.4 GFLOPS.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD FirePro W4170M uses the Opal chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M uses the GK104 chip based on Kepler architecture, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. Both are mobile workstation parts in the MXM Module form factor, but their internal designs diverge sharply.

The transistor counts reveal a major difference in die complexity. The AMD chip packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, with a density of 12.0 million per mm². The NVIDIA die is nearly four times larger in area and holds more than 3.7 times the transistors, yet its FP32 throughput is only about 9% higher (753.4 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS). The AMD design achieves a very similar compute result from a much smaller, less complex chip.

Clock speeds differ notably. The AMD FirePro W4170M runs at a base clock of 825 MHz with a boost to 900 MHz. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M runs at a fixed 654 MHz with no boost. The AMD card's higher clocks help compensate for its smaller shader count. Memory clocks also differ: the AMD card runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the NVIDIA card runs at 700 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective.

Memory configuration is a key architectural split. The AMD card uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus for 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card also uses 2 GB of GDDR5 but on a 256-bit bus for 89.60 GB/s. The wider bus gives NVIDIA a 40% bandwidth advantage, though the AMD card's higher memory clock partially mitigates the difference.

Compute resources favor NVIDIA on paper: 576 shading units, 48 TMUs, and 32 ROPs versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for AMD. The pixel rate is 7.848 GPixel/s for NVIDIA and 7.200 GPixel/s for AMD, a small edge for NVIDIA. The texture rate is 31.39 GTexel/s for NVIDIA versus 21.60 GTexel/s for AMD, a 45% advantage for NVIDIA. These figures suggest NVIDIA should dominate fill-rate-bound workloads, but the OpenCL benchmark does not reflect that.

API support shows minor differences. The AMD card supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both are capable of modern graphics APIs, with the AMD card offering a slightly higher DirectX feature level.

The bus interfaces differ: the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA card uses MXM-B (3.0). Both are end-of-life products, with the AMD card released in April 2015 and the NVIDIA card in May 2012. The AMD card's predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. The NVIDIA card's predecessor is Quadro Fermi-M and its successor is Quadro Maxwell-M. Neither card has a launch MSRP recorded in the database, and both draw power through MXM modules without additional power connectors.