AMD FirePro W4170M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3100M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M and AMD FirePro W4170M are both end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs, but they represent fundamentally different approaches to the same task. The data shows a clear single benchmark comparison, yet the underlying specifications reveal why these cards are built for different segments of the mobile professional market. The K3100M is a larger, more complex chip designed for maximum throughput, while the W4170M is a smaller, more efficient part aimed at lighter workloads. The benchmark results, though limited, strongly favor the NVIDIA part, but the architectural choices tell a more nuanced story about intended use cases.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the available benchmark data, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the unambiguous winner in raw compute performance. In the sole head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, the K3100M scores 6154 against the FirePro W4170M’s 5034, a decisive 22.2% lead. This positions the K3100M as the superior choice for any workload that leverages OpenCL acceleration, such as rendering, simulation, or data processing. The NVIDIA card’s higher average benchmark score of 5154, compared to 5034 for the AMD part, reinforces this dominance in general compute tasks.

The AMD FirePro W4170M, conversely, does not win any benchmark in this comparison. Its only recorded score is the 5034 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 22.2% behind the NVIDIA rival. However, the W4170M’s wins are not in performance but in efficiency and integration. With a transistor density of 12.3M / mm² on a 77 mm² die, it packs its 950 million transistors into a much smaller physical space than the K3100M’s 294 mm² die. This suggests the W4170M is better suited for thinner, lighter laptops where space and power are at a premium, even if it sacrifices compute performance. The data implies a trade-off: the K3100M wins on raw power, while the W4170M wins on physical footprint and potential system integration.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural philosophies. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is based on the Kepler architecture, built on the GK104 chip. This is a large, high-end design with 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The architecture is designed for high throughput, featuring 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). This configuration is typical of a performance-oriented part, prioritizing parallel processing capabilities.

In contrast, the AMD FirePro W4170M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip. This is a much smaller design, with only 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, also on a 28 nm process from TSMC. The GCN architecture is known for its compute-focused design, but the Opal chip is a low-end implementation, featuring 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The transistor density is nearly identical (12.0M / mm² for NVIDIA vs 12.3M / mm² for AMD), but the total resources are vastly different. The K3100M’s Kepler design offers double the shading units, over 2.5 times the TMUs, and four times the ROPs compared to the W4170M, explaining its significant performance advantage.

Another key difference is the bus interface. The K3100M uses an MXM-B (3.0) interface, while the W4170M uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. This suggests different integration strategies, with the MXM module being a standardized mobile form factor, while the PCIe x8 interface might allow for more direct motherboard integration. The memory architecture also differs, with the K3100M featuring a 256-bit bus and the W4170M a 128-bit bus, which directly impacts memory bandwidth.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are stark. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6154, while the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034. This gives the K3100M a 22.2% advantage, a substantial margin that indicates a clear performance hierarchy. The K3100M’s score is not just higher; it is significantly higher, suggesting that in OpenCL compute tasks, the NVIDIA card will complete workloads noticeably faster.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the K3100M also has additional data points. It scores 3823 in Geekbench Metal and 5484 in Geekbench Vulkan, tests that the W4170M does not have results for. While these are different APIs, they show that the K3100M is capable across multiple compute interfaces. The W4170M’s lack of Vulkan or Metal scores is notable, potentially indicating a narrower focus on OpenCL-only workloads. The average benchmark score for the K3100M is 5154, which is higher than the W4170M’s 5034, but the single head-to-head test provides the most direct comparison. The 22.2% delta in OpenCL is the definitive metric for comparing these two in compute performance.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs reveal several key differences beyond just core counts. The most obvious is memory capacity: the K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5, while the W4170M has only 2 GB. This is a major differentiator for large datasets or high-resolution textures. The memory bus width also differs dramatically, with the K3100M using a 256-bit interface versus the W4170M’s 128-bit. This results in a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s for the NVIDIA card, compared to 64.00 GB/s for the AMD card, a 60% advantage for the K3100M.

Clock speeds also vary. The K3100M has a fixed base and boost clock of 706 MHz, while the W4170M has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz. The AMD card runs at higher frequencies, but this does not compensate for its lower core count. The memory clock also differs: the K3100M runs at 800 MHz (3.2 Gbps effective), while the W4170M runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The K3100M’s higher bandwidth comes from its wider bus, not its memory clock speed.

Other differences include the power connector configuration, which is "None" for both, but the TDP is listed as 75 W for the K3100M and is null for the W4170M. The API support is similar, with both supporting DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2, though the K3100M has a slightly higher Vulkan version (1.2.175 vs 1.2.170). The generation names differ, with the K3100M being part of the "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M)" series and the W4170M being part of the "FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)" series. Their release dates are also different, with the K3100M launching on 2013-07-22 and the W4170M on 2015-04-22.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has a memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, which is significantly higher than the AMD FirePro W4170M’s 64.00 GB/s. This is due to the K3100M’s 256-bit memory bus versus the W4170M’s 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the core clock speed difference?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M has a higher boost clock at 900 MHz, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M’s fixed 706 MHz. However, the K3100M compensates with a much larger number of shading units (768 vs 384).

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M scores 6154, which is 22.2% higher than the AMD FirePro W4170M’s score of 5034.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan. The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M supports Vulkan 1.2.175, while the AMD FirePro W4170M supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which GPU has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD FirePro W4170M has 2 GB. This gives the K3100M an advantage in memory-intensive tasks.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3100M has 3,540 million transistors, whereas the AMD FirePro W4170M has 950 million. This reflects the K3100M’s much larger and more complex die.

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M is the superior performer for compute-heavy tasks. Its 22.2% lead in OpenCL, combined with double the shading units, four times the ROPs, and 60% more memory bandwidth, makes it the definitive choice for professional workloads that demand raw processing power. The 4 GB memory capacity is also a significant advantage over the W4170M’s 2 GB, allowing for larger datasets and more complex scenes.

The AMD FirePro W4170M, however, should be the choice for systems where physical size and integration are more critical than raw performance. Its 77 mm² die is a fraction of the K3100M’s 294 mm², and it uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface instead of the bulkier MXM-B module. This makes it a more practical option for ultra-portable workstations or specialized embedded systems where space is at a premium. The higher boost clock of 900 MHz also suggests it can handle lighter tasks efficiently.

In essence, the K3100M is for users who need maximum compute capability in a mobile workstation. The W4170M is for users who need a capable, compact GPU that fits into smaller chassis. The benchmark data heavily favors the NVIDIA card, but the architectural differences indicate that the AMD part is not without its own niche. For anyone prioritizing raw OpenCL performance, the K3100M is the only logical choice. For those prioritizing a small footprint, the W4170M is the sensible alternative. The data does not support any other conclusion.