AMD FirePro W4170M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 and AMD FirePro W4170M are both end-of-life professional graphics solutions, but they target fundamentally different segments: the K4000 is a desktop workstation card, while the W4170M is a mobile module. The recorded data shows a clear performance hierarchy, but the choice between them depends heavily on the intended platform and workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct head-to-head comparison between these two cards, using the Geekbench OpenCL test. This is a compute-oriented workload that stresses general-purpose GPU processing rather than raw rasterization. The results are decisive.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scored 6816 points in Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD FirePro W4170M scored 5034 points. This gives the Quadro K4000 a 35.4% advantage over the FirePro W4170M. This is not a marginal win; it is a substantial lead that will be felt in any OpenCL-accelerated application, such as video encoding, physics simulation, or scientific computation.

To put this in context, look at where each card sits relative to its own nearest rivals. The Quadro K4000's average benchmark score is 5982, which places it at the 34th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (average score 5986, a delta of -0.1%), the AMD FirePro W4100 (average score 5987, delta -0.1%), the AMD Radeon HD 8750M (average score 5970, delta 0.2%), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (average score 5996, delta -0.2%). These deltas are all within a fraction of a percent, meaning the Quadro K4000 is essentially tied with these four cards in average performance, despite the wide range of architectures and target markets they represent. The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server is a modern, high-end data center card, yet its average score in this specific benchmark suite is nearly identical to this 2013 workstation GPU, which highlights how the average score metric can obscure the specific workload differences.

The FirePro W4170M's average benchmark score is 5034, placing it at the 30th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (average score 5018, delta 0.3%), the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (average score 5063, delta -0.6%), the AMD Radeon R7 240 (average score 5063, delta -0.6%), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (average score 4998, delta 0.7%). Again, these are all extremely close scores, indicating that the FirePro W4170M is firmly in the company of entry-level discrete and integrated graphics solutions.

The raw numbers show a clear hierarchy. The Quadro K4000's OpenCL score of 6816 is not only 35.4% ahead of the FirePro W4170M's 5034, but it is also notably higher than the Quadro K4000's own average score of 5982. This suggests the card performs particularly well in the OpenCL compute test relative to its overall average. Conversely, the FirePro W4170M's OpenCL score of 5034 is exactly equal to its average score, indicating that this test is representative of its typical performance level.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the verdict is straightforward for compute workloads: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the significantly faster card. Its 35.4% lead in the recorded OpenCL benchmark is a dominant margin. If your primary concern is raw compute performance in a desktop workstation, the Quadro K4000 is the clear choice. Its higher shading unit count (768 vs 384), texture mapping units (64 vs 24), and render output units (24 vs 8) all contribute to its superior throughput, and the benchmark confirms this.

However, the FirePro W4170M is a mobile part. Its form factor is listed as "MXM Module," and its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent." This means it is designed to be soldered or slotted into a laptop. The Quadro K4000 is a single-slot desktop card with a 241 mm length and a 111 mm height. You cannot simply choose the faster card if your platform is a laptop; you must choose the card that physically fits. Therefore, the verdict is conditional. For a desktop workstation where compute performance is paramount, the data points squarely to the NVIDIA Quadro K4000. For a mobile workstation where the card must be integrated into a laptop chassis, the AMD FirePro W4170M is the only one of the two that is applicable, despite its lower performance.

The percentile data reinforces this. The Quadro K4000 sits at the 34th percentile, which is higher than the FirePro W4170M's 30th percentile. While neither card is a top performer by modern standards, the Quadro K4000 is clearly the stronger of the two.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark results, the use case split is clear.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins in every scenario where the card can be physically installed. Its 35.4% advantage in OpenCL performance makes it the superior choice for any compute-intensive desktop task. This includes GPU-accelerated rendering in applications that leverage OpenCL, scientific calculations, video transcoding, and any professional workstation workload that can offload work to the GPU. Its larger memory pool of 3 GB versus 2 GB also gives it an edge in handling larger datasets that exceed the FirePro's capacity. The K4000's higher memory bandwidth of 134.8 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s further reinforces its advantage in memory-bound compute tasks.

The AMD FirePro W4170M wins in the specific scenario of mobile computing. It has no direct desktop competition from the Quadro K4000 because the K4000 cannot be used in a laptop. The W4170M is the only option for a mobile workstation that requires a FirePro-class GPU. Its lower power draw, indicated by having no external power connectors and no suggested PSU rating, makes it suitable for the thermal and power constraints of a laptop chassis. The Quadro K4000, with its 80 W TDP and 1x 6-pin power connector, requires a desktop power supply.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is faster, scoring 6816 compared to the AMD FirePro W4170M's 5034, a 35.4% difference.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The Quadro K4000 has an average benchmark score of 5982, while the FirePro W4170M has an average score of 5034.

Q: How does the Quadro K4000 compare to its nearest rival, the Quadro K4000M?

A: The Quadro K4000M has an average score of 5986, which is a -0.1% delta from the K4000. They are effectively tied in average performance.

Q: How does the FirePro W4170M compare to the AMD Radeon R7 M340?

A: The Radeon R7 M340 has an average score of 5063, which is a -0.6% delta from the W4170M. The W4170M is marginally faster.

Q: Does the FirePro W4170M have a higher transistor density than the Quadro K4000?

A: Yes, the FirePro W4170M has a transistor density of 12.3M / mm², while the Quadro K4000 has 11.5M / mm².

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The Quadro K4000 has a pixel rate of 12.96 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the FirePro W4170M's 7.200 GPixel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on different architectures from different manufacturers, and these differences explain the performance gap.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip, based on the Kepler architecture. This is a desktop-oriented design manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The chip contains 2,540 million transistors on a die size of 221 mm². The FirePro W4170M uses the Opal chip, based on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture. It is also manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but it is a much smaller and more power-efficient design, with 950 million transistors on a die size of 77 mm². The transistor density is slightly higher on the AMD chip (12.3M / mm² vs 11.5M / mm²), but the total computing resources are far greater on the NVIDIA chip.

The NVIDIA card has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 render output units. The AMD card has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. This means the Quadro K4000 has exactly double the shaders, over 2.5 times the TMUs, and three times the ROPs. These are massive structural advantages that directly translate to the 35.4% OpenCL lead. The FP32 compute throughput is 1,244.2 GFLOPS for the K4000 and 691.2 GFLOPS for the W4170M, a near 2x difference.

The memory subsystems also differ significantly. The K4000 has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 134.8 GB/s. The W4170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s. The K4000's memory clock is 1404 MHz (or 5.6 Gbps effective), while the W4170M's is 1000 MHz (or 4 Gbps effective). The K4000 also supports a wider bus interface: PCIe 2.0 x16 versus the W4170M's PCIe 3.0 x8. While x8 is a newer standard, the x16 interface on the K4000 provides more lanes for data transfer.

Both cards support similar API levels. The K4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The W4170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The DirectX version difference is minor and unlikely to affect real-world compatibility in professional applications.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two cards, based on the recorded data.

• Chip: NVIDIA uses GK106, AMD uses Opal.
• Architecture: NVIDIA uses Kepler, AMD uses GCN 1.0.
• Generation: NVIDIA is in the Quadro Kepler (Kx000) generation, AMD is in the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation.
• Transistors: NVIDIA has 2,540 million, AMD has 950 million.
• Die Size: NVIDIA is 221 mm², AMD is 77 mm².
• Transistor Density: NVIDIA is 11.5M / mm², AMD is 12.3M / mm².
• Boost Clock: AMD has a boost clock of 900 MHz; NVIDIA has no listed boost clock.
• Base Clock: AMD has a base clock of 825 MHz; NVIDIA has no listed base clock.
• Memory Clock: NVIDIA is 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective), AMD is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).
• Memory Size: NVIDIA is 3 GB, AMD is 2 GB.
• Memory Bus Width: NVIDIA is 192 bit, AMD is 128 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: NVIDIA is 134.8 GB/s, AMD is 64.00 GB/s.
• Shading Units: NVIDIA has 768, AMD has 384.
• TMUs: NVIDIA has 64, AMD has 24.
• ROPs: NVIDIA has 24, AMD has 8.
• Pixel Rate: NVIDIA is 12.96 GPixel/s, AMD is 7.200 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: NVIDIA is 51.84 GTexel/s, AMD is 21.60 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: NVIDIA is 1,244.2 GFLOPS, AMD is 691.2 GFLOPS.
• TDP: NVIDIA is 80 W, AMD has no listed TDP.
• Slot Width: NVIDIA is Single-slot, AMD is MXM Module.
• Power Connectors: NVIDIA requires 1x 6-pin, AMD requires None.
• Suggested PSU: NVIDIA suggests 250 W, AMD has no listed suggestion.
• Bus Interface: NVIDIA is PCIe 2.0 x16, AMD is PCIe 3.0 x8.
• Display Outputs: NVIDIA has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2, AMD is Portable Device Dependent.
• Dimensions: NVIDIA is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high, AMD has no listed dimensions.
• Release Date: NVIDIA was released on 2013-02-28, AMD on 2015-04-22.
• Predecessor: NVIDIA's predecessor is Quadro Fermi, AMD's is FirePro Mobility.
• Successor: NVIDIA's successor is Quadro Maxwell, AMD's is Radeon Pro Mobile.
• Launch MSRP: NVIDIA is 1,269 USD, AMD has no listed launch MSRP.