AMD FirePro W4170M vs NVIDIA Quadro M3000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a decisive victory for the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M in the single shared test recorded in the database. The two mobile workstation GPUs were both evaluated using Geekbench's OpenCL compute workload, and the results are stark. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scored 16,646 points, while the AMD FirePro W4170M managed only 5,034 points. This translates to a delta of 69.8% in favor of the NVIDIA part, meaning the Quadro M3000M delivered roughly three times the OpenCL compute performance of the AMD FirePro W4170M.

This head-to-head result is the only direct benchmark comparison between the two cards in the database, and it highlights a massive gap in raw compute throughput. The AMD FirePro W4170M's score of 5,034 places it in the 30th percentile of all GPUs tracked, while the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M's OpenCL score of 16,646 would rank it far higher had it been calculated into the same percentile metric. However, the database's aggregate statistics tell a slightly different story. The Quadro M3000M's average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 4,621, which is actually lower than the FirePro W4170M's average of 5,034. This is because the NVIDIA card was subjected to a broader suite of tests, including several legacy DirectX and compute workloads where it posted lower raw numbers.

Notably, the Quadro M3000M has a percentile rank of only 27th, which is lower than the FirePro W4170M's 30th percentile. This apparent contradiction stems from the fact that the NVIDIA card's average is dragged down by the inclusion of its low DirectX scores. The Quadro M3000M posted PassMark DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12 scores of 98, 26, 42, and 23 respectively, while its PassMark G2D and G3D scores were 402 and 5,543. In contrast, the FirePro W4170M only has the single OpenCL benchmark recorded, which likely inflates its average relative to the more thoroughly tested NVIDIA part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two mobile workstation GPUs is substantial. The AMD FirePro W4170M is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Opal chip, whereas the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with the GM204 processor. Both are fabricated on a 28 nanometer process at TSMC, but the chips themselves differ dramatically in size and complexity.

The AMD chip contains 950 million transistors on a 77 square millimeter die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA chip packs 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 square millimeter die, resulting in a density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. This represents a 5.5x increase in transistor count and a 5.2x increase in die area for the NVIDIA part.

The execution resources differ enormously. The Quadro M3000M features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 32 raster output pipelines. The FirePro W4170M, by contrast, has only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This translates to a fill rate of 29.57 gigapixels per second and a texture rate of 59.14 gigatexels per second for the NVIDIA card, versus 7.2 gigapixels per second and 21.6 gigatexels per second for the AMD. In floating point performance, the Quadro M3000M delivers 1,892 GFLOPS, which is 2.7 times the 691.2 GFLOPS of the FirePro W4170M.

Clock speeds are similar, with the AMD card slightly higher at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost, versus 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost for the NVIDIA card. The memory subsystem is another major differentiator. The Quadro M3000M comes with 4 gigabytes of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 gigabytes per second of bandwidth. The FirePro W4170M has only 2 gigabytes of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.0 gigabytes per second. The NVIDIA card also runs its memory at 1253 MHz, while the AMD uses 1000 MHz.

Where Each One Wins

The data indicates that the Quadro M3000M is the outright winner in direct compute performance. Its OpenCL score is 3.3 times higher than the FirePro W4170M. This makes it suitable for workloads that demand heavy parallel processing, such as rendering, simulation, and GPU-accelerated compute tasks. The Quadro's 4 gigabytes of memory and 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth also give it a clear edge in tasks that require loading large datasets into VRAM, such as high-resolution textures and complex 3D scenes.

However, the FirePro W4170M does hold an advantage in aggregate average benchmark score, 5,034 versus 4,621 for the NVIDIA card. This is due to the fact that the database only has one benchmark recorded for the FirePro, while the Quadro is tested across nine different workloads. In those additional workloads, the Quadro's scores are mixed. Its PassMark graphics 3D score of 5,543 is respectable, and its graphics 2D score of 402 is notable. But the DirectX scores are extremely low, ranging from 23 to 98, which would indicate poor performance in older APIs. The FirePro W4170M, by contrast, has no recorded DirectX or PassMark tests, so its single OpenCL score stands as its only data point.

In terms of relative positioning within the database, the FirePro W4170M sits close to several other AMD parts. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5,018, delta of 0.3%), the Radeon R7 M340 (5,063, delta of -0.6%), and the Radeon R7 240 (5,063, delta of -0.6%). The Quadro M3000M's nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 970M (4,628, -0.1%), the Radeon R5 M320 (4,657, -0.8%), and the Radeon R5 M230 (4,577, 1.0%). These delta percentages indicate that the Quadro's average is slightly below the GTX 970M, while the FirePro's average is about 0.3% above the R5 M430.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is significantly faster, scoring 16,646 on the Geekbench OpenCL test, while the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5,034. The delta is 69.8% in favor of the NVIDIA card.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 4 gigabytes of GDDR5 memory, while the FirePro W4170M has 2 gigabytes of the same memory type.

Q: Which card has a better memory bandwidth?

A: The Quadro M3000M has a clear advantage with 160.4 GB/s of bandwidth, versus 64.0 GB/s for the FirePro W4170M. This is due to a 256-bit memory bus versus a 128-bit bus.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The FirePro W4170M has a higher average benchmark score of 5,034, compared to the Quadro M3000M's average of 4,621. However, this is because the Quadro is tested across more benchmarks, including several low DirectX scores.

Q: What is the transistor count for each GPU?

A: The Quadro M3000M has 5,200 million transistors, while the FirePro W4170M has 950 million.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The Quadro M3000M delivers 29.57 GPixel/s, whereas the FirePro W4170M achieves 7.2 GPixel/s.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on a wide range of specifications. The process node is the same at 28 nm and both use TSMC as the foundry, but the chip designs are completely distinct. The AMD FirePro W4170M uses the Opal chip with a GCN 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0.

The transistor budget is a major differentiator: 950 million versus 5,200 million. The die size also varies, at 77 square millimeters for AMD and 398 square millimeters for NVIDIA. Transistor density is slightly higher on the NVIDIA chip at 13.1M per square millimeter versus 12.3M per square millimeter.

Clock speeds are close: the AMD has a base of 825 MHz and a boost of 900 MHz, while the NVIDIA has a base of 823 MHz and a boost of 924 MHz. The memory clocks differ, with the AMD at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) and the NVIDIA at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity, type, bus width, and bandwidth are all different. The AMD has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.0 GB/s, while the NVIDIA has 4 GB on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s. The shading units, texture mapping units, and ROPs all show differences: 384, 24, and 8 on the AMD versus 1,024, 64, and 32 on the NVIDIA.

Pixel rate and texture rate are higher on the NVIDIA card, and the FP32 performance is 1,892 TFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. The TDP is listed for the NVIDIA at 75 watts, but there is no TDP value recorded for the AMD. The bus interface differs: the AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x16.

The API support shows a different DirectX version, with the AMD supporting DirectX 12 (11_1) and the NVIDIA supporting DirectX 12 (12_1). OpenGL is the same at 4.6, but the Vulkan versions differ: 1.2.170 for AMD and 1.4 for NVIDIA. The display outputs are both listed as portable device dependent, and the slot width is MXM Module for both. The release dates are different, with the AMD coming out on April 22, 2015, and the NVIDIA on August 17, 2015. Their production status is end-of-life for both.