AMD FirePro W4170M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded benchmark in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows a decisive result. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5,986, while the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5,034. That translates to an 18.9% advantage for the Quadro K4000M, a substantial gap in a compute-oriented workload. The data shows a clear winner in this head-to-head comparison, with the NVIDIA part leading by nearly a fifth of the AMD card's score.

Context from the nearest rivals helps frame this result. The Quadro K4000M sits in a tight cluster of similar performers. Its nearest rival, the AMD FirePro W4100, scores 5,987, a delta of just 0% from the Quadro's 5,986. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (desktop variant) scores 5,982, only 0.1% behind. Even the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 5,996, which is merely 0.2% ahead, and the GeForce GTX 770M scores 6,000, also 0.2% ahead. The Quadro K4000M is effectively in a dead heat with these parts, despite the massive architectural differences between some of them.

The FirePro W4170M, by contrast, sits in a different performance neighborhood. Its nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5,063, which is 0.6% ahead of the FirePro's 5,034. The AMD Radeon R7 240 matches that 5,063 figure, also 0.6% ahead. The AMD Radeon R5 M430 trails at 5,018, putting it 0.3% behind the FirePro. The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4,998, which is 0.7% behind. The FirePro W4170M is competitive with these entry-level parts, but it does not approach the Quadro's scoring level.

The percentile data reinforces the gap. The Quadro K4000M ranks in the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro W4170M ranks in the 30th percentile. That four-percentile difference is modest, but the raw score gap is what matters most in the head-to-head. A user relying on OpenCL compute performance would see a meaningful difference between these two mobile workstation cards.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is the stronger performer in the only benchmark recorded. Its 18.9% lead over the FirePro W4170M in Geekbench OpenCL is significant enough to matter in real workloads that depend on compute throughput. The Quadro also carries a higher percentile ranking, 34th versus 30th, which reflects its position relative to the broader database.

For users who need maximum OpenCL performance in a mobile workstation, the Quadro K4000M is the clear choice. The numbers show no scenario where the FirePro W4170M takes the lead in the recorded data. However, the FirePro should not be dismissed entirely. It operates in a lower performance tier, but its nearest rivals are all within 0.7% of its score, indicating that it is a consistent performer within its class. For workloads that do not stress compute hard, or for systems where the FirePro's other characteristics are more desirable, it remains a viable option. But the verdict is straightforward: the Quadro K4000M wins the head-to-head on measurable performance.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural lineages, and the specifications show why the Quadro pulls ahead.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip, built on the Kepler architecture at TSMC's 28 nm process. It packs 3,540 million transistors into a 294 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The FirePro W4170M uses the Opal chip, based on GCN 1.0, also fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains 950 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, with a slightly higher transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The Quadro's die is nearly four times larger, which explains its substantially higher transistor count.

The compute resources differ dramatically. The Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro W4170M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The Quadro has 2.5 times the shading units, 3.3 times the TMUs, and 4 times the ROPs. These ratios directly explain the performance gap in pixel rate and texture rate. The Quadro achieves 12.02 GPixel/s and 48.08 GTexel/s, while the FirePro manages 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s. The Quadro's FP32 throughput is 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro, a 1.67 times advantage.

Memory configurations also differ. The Quadro K4000M carries 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W4170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s. The Quadro's wider bus and larger capacity give it a clear memory advantage. Clock speeds favor the FirePro in raw frequency: its base clock is 825 MHz with a 900 MHz boost, while the Quadro runs at a flat 601 MHz with no boost. But the Quadro's wider architecture more than compensates for its lower clock speed.

API support shows minor differences. Both support DirectX 12, but the Quadro is listed as 12 (11_0) while the FirePro is 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support is close, with the Quadro at 1.2.175 and the FirePro at 1.2.170. The bus interface differs: the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), while the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5,986 on Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 5,034 for the AMD FirePro W4170M, an 18.9% difference.

Q: How does the Quadro K4000M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro K4000M is effectively tied with the AMD FirePro W4100 (5,987, 0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5,982, 0.1% behind), and the GeForce GTX 770M (6,000, 0.2% ahead). The RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 5,996, also 0.2% ahead.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The Quadro K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 89.60 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W4170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The Quadro K4000M has 960 shading units, while the FirePro W4170M has 384, a 2.5 times difference in favor of the Quadro.

Q: What is the transistor count for each GPU?

A: The Quadro K4000M contains 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The FirePro W4170M contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan versions differ slightly: the Quadro supports 1.2.175, the FirePro supports 1.2.170. DirectX feature levels also differ, with the Quadro at 11_0 and the FirePro at 11_1.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M wins in every measurable category from the recorded data. It has the higher OpenCL score, the higher percentile ranking, more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, higher FP32 throughput, more memory, wider memory bus, and higher memory bandwidth. For compute-heavy workloads, 3D rendering, or any task that leverages OpenCL, the Quadro is the superior choice.

The AMD FirePro W4170M does have some advantages in the specification sheet, though not in benchmark scores. It has a higher base clock (825 MHz versus 601 MHz) and a boost clock (900 MHz versus 601 MHz). It also has a slightly higher transistor density (12.3M per mm² versus 12.0M per mm²). Its smaller die and lower transistor count could imply lower power consumption, though the database lists no TDP for the FirePro while the Quadro is rated at 100 W. The FirePro also supports a slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0). For users who prioritize these secondary characteristics over raw compute performance, the FirePro has a niche. But in the only benchmark that matters in this comparison, the Quadro wins outright.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two GPUs in the database:

• Chip: GK104 (NVIDIA) versus Opal (AMD)
• Architecture: Kepler versus GCN 1.0
• Generation: Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) versus FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)
• Transistors: 3,540 million versus 950 million
• Die Size: 294 mm² versus 77 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.0M / mm² versus 12.3M / mm²
• Base Clock: 601 MHz versus 825 MHz
• Boost Clock: 601 MHz versus 900 MHz
• Memory Clock: 2.8 Gbps effective versus 4 Gbps effective
• Memory Size: 4 GB versus 2 GB
• Memory Bus Width: 256 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 89.60 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 960 versus 384
• TMUs: 80 versus 24
• ROPs: 32 versus 8
• Pixel Rate: 12.02 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 48.08 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 100 W versus not listed
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• DirectX: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan: 1.2.175 versus 1.2.170
• Release Date: 2012-05-31 versus 2015-04-22
• Predecessor: Quadro Fermi-M versus FirePro Mobility
• Successor: Quadro Maxwell-M versus Radeon Pro Mobile
• OpenCL Score: 5,986 versus 5,034
• Percentile: 34th versus 30th