AMD FirePro W4170M vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 and AMD FirePro W4170M are both end-of-life professional graphics solutions, but they target entirely different segments of the market. The Quadro M4000 is a full-height, single-slot desktop workstation card built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the FirePro W4170M is a mobile MXM module based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture. The benchmark data shows a decisive performance gap, with the Quadro M4000 leading in every measurable category, but the FirePro W4170M still holds relevance in its specific mobile niche. This analysis breaks down where each card wins, how they compare in raw numbers, and what the architectural differences mean for a potential buyer.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins in every single benchmark category where both cards have results. The head-to-head comparison shows the Quadro M4000 scoring 19,118 in Geekbench OpenCL against the FirePro W4170M's 5,034, a massive 279.8% advantage. This is not a close contest by any metric.

The Quadro M4000's win condition is straightforward: it is a desktop-class workstation card designed for sustained, high-throughput compute and professional visualization tasks. Its 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus delivers 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is more than three times the FirePro W4170M's 64.00 GB/s. In synthetic workloads like Passmark G3D, the Quadro M4000 scores 6,680, placing it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4170M manages only a 30th percentile ranking with a single Geekbench OpenCL score of 5,034.

The FirePro W4170M's win condition is not about raw performance — it simply does not have any benchmark victories in this data. Instead, its advantage is physical: it is an MXM Module with no power connectors and a portable-device-dependent display output. This makes it a drop-in upgrade for compatible laptops, where the Quadro M4000's 241 mm length and single-slot design cannot physically fit. For a mobile workstation user, the FirePro W4170M is the only one of these two that can operate in their system at all.

The Verdict

If you are building or upgrading a desktop workstation, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is the only logical choice from this pairing. Its 2.573 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, 49.47 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 80.39 GTexel/s texture rate dwarf the FirePro W4170M's 691.2 GFLOPS, 7.200 GPixel/s, and 21.60 GTexel/s. The Quadro M4000 also supports DirectX 12 (12_1), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, while the FirePro W4170M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. In every workload where both cards can run, the Quadro M4000 is faster by an order of magnitude.

The FirePro W4170M is for a very specific user: someone with a compatible MXM-equipped laptop that needs a professional driver and a 2 GB GDDR5 memory buffer. Its 384 shading units and 8 ROPs are modest, but they are sufficient for basic CAD or media tasks on a mobile platform. The data shows it sits in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, right next to entries like the AMD Radeon R5 M430 and Radeon R7 M340, confirming its entry-level positioning. If you need a mobile workstation GPU and your laptop accepts this module, it is a functional option — but you are choosing it for compatibility, not performance.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a rout. The Quadro M4000 scores 19,118, while the FirePro W4170M scores 5,034. That is a delta of 279.8%, meaning the Quadro M4000 delivers roughly 3.8 times the OpenCL compute performance of the FirePro W4170M. This result is consistent with the underlying specifications: the Quadro M4000 has 1,664 shading units versus 384, 104 texture mapping units versus 24, and 64 ROPs versus 8.

Looking at the broader benchmark suite, the Quadro M4000's other scores reinforce its dominance. In Passmark G3D, it posts 6,680, and in Geekbench Vulkan it reaches 24,640. The FirePro W4170M has no results for these tests, so no direct comparison is possible, but the gap in available data is itself telling — the mobile card lacks the compute headroom to even register in many standard desktop benchmarks. The Quadro M4000's average benchmark score is 5,467, while the FirePro W4170M's average is 5,034, which is the only instance where the two are close. This is because the Quadro M4000's average is dragged down by low scores in legacy DirectX tests (e.g., 26 in Passmark DirectX 12, 33 in DirectX 10), while the FirePro W4170M's single score is just its OpenCL result. For modern workloads, the Quadro M4000 is far ahead.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000. It delivers 2.573 TFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the AMD FirePro W4170M delivers only 691.2 GFLOPS — a difference of roughly 3.7x in the Quadro's favor.

Q: Can I use the FirePro W4170M in a desktop PC?

A: The data does not indicate any desktop form factor for this card. It is listed as an MXM Module with no power connectors and a display output described as "Portable Device Dependent," which strongly suggests it is intended exclusively for mobile workstations.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD FirePro W4170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD FirePro W4170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro M4000 has a higher feature level in both DirectX and Vulkan.

Q: What is the performance gap in the only shared benchmark?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro M4000 scores 19,118 against the FirePro W4170M's 5,034. This is a 279.8% advantage for the Quadro M4000.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life products. The Quadro M4000 was released on 2015-06-28, and the FirePro W4170M was released on 2015-04-22.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 is built on the Maxwell 2.0 architecture using the GM204 chip, a design that emphasizes high shading-unit counts and efficient power delivery. It packs 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die using a 28 nm process from TSMC, resulting in a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The FirePro W4170M uses AMD's older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip, which is a much smaller design: 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, also on TSMC's 28 nm process, but with a lower density of 12.3 million per square millimeter.

These architectural choices explain the performance gap. Maxwell 2.0 is a mature, high-performance architecture for desktop discrete GPUs, and the GM204 chip is a large, full-featured die with 1,664 shading units and 64 ROPs. GCN 1.0, in contrast, was AMD's first-generation compute architecture, and the Opal chip is a small, low-power mobile part with only 384 shading units and 8 ROPs. The Quadro M4000 also has a 256-bit memory interface versus the FirePro W4170M's 128-bit interface, which directly impacts memory bandwidth (192.3 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s). The API support differences stem from this architectural gap: Maxwell 2.0 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while GCN 1.0 tops out at DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in almost every measurable specification. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory, a 256-bit bus, and 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth; the AMD FirePro W4170M has 2 GB of GDDR5, a 128-bit bus, and 64.00 GB/s. The Quadro M4000 features 1,664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, while the FirePro W4170M is limited to 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Clock speeds also differ: the FirePro W4170M has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz, while the Quadro M4000's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data, though its memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus the FirePro's 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Physical and power characteristics are equally divergent. The Quadro M4000 is a single-slot, 241 mm long, 111 mm tall desktop card with a 120 W TDP and a single 6-pin power connector, requiring a 300 W suggested PSU. The FirePro W4170M is an MXM Module with no power connectors, no listed TDP, and dimensions that are not specified, making it suitable for portable devices. The Quadro M4000 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and offers 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the FirePro W4170M uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and its display outputs are dependent on the host portable device. Both cards use GDDR5 memory, but the Quadro M4000's larger bus and higher effective clock speed give it more than three times the memory bandwidth.