GPU Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4170M and NVIDIA Quadro P400 are both end-of-life professional mobile graphics solutions, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. The data shows a clear, albeit narrow, victory for the older AMD part in the single available head-to-head metric, while the NVIDIA card counters with a more modern feature set and superior architectural efficiency. This analysis breaks down what the benchmark numbers actually mean for a potential user, based strictly on the provided facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 scores 4249. This gives the AMD part a decisive 18.5% lead in raw compute throughput. This is a significant margin, indicating that for compute-heavy workloads that leverage OpenCL, the older GCN architecture is substantially faster than the newer Pascal-based Quadro.

However, the story is not one-sided. The Quadro P400 has a separate Geekbench Vulkan score of 5119, which is its strongest result and surpasses the FirePro's OpenCL score. This suggests that the NVIDIA card is better optimized for modern, low-level graphics APIs. The FirePro W4170M has no Vulkan benchmark listed, so its performance in that API is unknown from this data. Furthermore, the average benchmark score across all tests for the Quadro P400 is 4684, which is dragged down by its lower OpenCL result. The AMD part's average score is 5034, the same as its single OpenCL result.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the FirePro W4170M sits in the 30th percentile of all GPUs, with its nearest rivals being the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018, a 0.3% delta) and the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063, a -0.6% delta). This indicates it is a mid-to-low-tier performer, clustered tightly with other entry-level mobile parts. The Quadro P400, in contrast, sits in the 27th percentile, with a closer rival being the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, a 1.2% delta for the Quadro). Interestingly, the Quadro's average score is also nearly identical to the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB (4657), a much more modern part, though that comparison is based on average scores alone.

The data implies that in a pure compute contest, the FirePro's higher shading unit count and wider memory bus give it a tangible advantage. The Quadro P400, despite its newer architecture, cannot match that raw throughput. The win tally reflects this, with 1 win for the AMD FirePro W4170M and 0 wins for the NVIDIA Quadro P400 in the head-to-head benchmarks provided.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on starkly different foundations. The AMD FirePro W4170M uses the Opal chip based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3M / mm². This is an older, larger process node that is less power-efficient per transistor.

The NVIDIA Quadro P400 uses the GP107 chip based on the Pascal architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Samsung. This is a much more modern and dense design, housing 3,300 million transistors in a 132 mm² die. This translates to a significantly higher transistor density of 25.0M / mm², more than double that of the AMD chip. This density advantage allows NVIDIA to pack far more functionality into a smaller area, which is a key reason for its lower power consumption.

The core configurations are also very different. The FirePro W4170M has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and only 8 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). In contrast, the Quadro P400 has fewer shading units (256) and TMUs (16), but double the ROPs (16). This explains the performance split: the FirePro's higher shader count aids in compute (FP32), while the Quadro's higher ROP count is better suited for pixel-fill and rasterization tasks.

Clock speeds further differentiate them. The AMD card has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz. The NVIDIA card runs much faster, with a base clock of 1228 MHz and a boost of 1252 MHz. Despite the higher clocks, the Quadro's FP32 performance is still lower at 641.0 GFLOPS vs. the FirePro's 691.2 GFLOPS, due to its lower shader count. The Quadro's pixel rate, however, is far superior at 20.03 GPixel/s compared to the FirePro's 7.200 GPixel/s. Texture rates are nearly identical at 21.60 GTexel/s for AMD and 20.03 GTexel/s for NVIDIA.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5, but the FirePro has a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro has a much narrower 64-bit bus, halving bandwidth to 32.06 GB/s. This is a critical weakness for the Quadro in memory-intensive tasks, despite having a similar effective memory clock of 4 Gbps. The FirePro also supports a wider range of features for its time, listing Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro lists a more modern Vulkan 1.4. Both support DirectX 12, but the FirePro is limited to 12 (11_1), while the Quadro supports 12 (12_1).

The Verdict

From the data alone, the choice is not straightforward. The AMD FirePro W4170M is the clear winner for raw OpenCL compute performance, delivering an 18.5% higher score. Its 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is double that of the Quadro P400, making it the better option for workloads that are sensitive to memory throughput. It also has a higher raw FP32 throughput.

The NVIDIA Quadro P400, however, is the more balanced and modern part. It has a much higher pixel rate (20.03 GPixel/s vs 7.200 GPixel/s), which suggests it will be faster in tasks that involve heavy rasterization or 2D/3D scene rendering. Its support for DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4 indicates a more future-proof feature set for modern applications. Its dramatically lower TDP of 30 W (vs. unspecified for the AMD part) makes it far more suitable for compact, low-power systems. The Quadro also has a Vulkan score of 5119, which is higher than the FirePro's best OpenCL score, hinting at its strength in modern APIs.

Strictly from the data, the FirePro W4170M should be picked for pure compute tasks where OpenCL and memory bandwidth are paramount. The Quadro P400 should be picked for modern API support, lower power consumption, and tasks that benefit from high pixel fill rates. The older AMD card wins the compute war, but the newer NVIDIA card wins the architectural efficiency and modern feature battle.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher raw compute score in OpenCL?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M has a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5034, which is 18.5% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro P400's score of 4249.

Q: How does memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M offers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth thanks to its 128-bit bus, which is exactly double the NVIDIA Quadro P400's 32.06 GB/s from its 64-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 has a significantly higher pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s, compared to 7.200 GPixel/s for the AMD FirePro W4170M.

Q: What is the process node and transistor count difference?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M is on a 28 nm process with 950 million transistors, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is on a more advanced 14 nm process with 3,300 million transistors.

Q: Which card supports a newer version of Vulkan?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 supports Vulkan 1.4, which is a newer version than the Vulkan 1.2.170 supported by the AMD FirePro W4170M.

Q: What is the power draw of the NVIDIA Quadro P400?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 has a TDP of 30 W. The TDP for the AMD FirePro W4170M is not listed in the data.

Where Each One Wins

AMD FirePro W4170M Wins:

• OpenCL Compute: The 18.5% higher Geekbench OpenCL score makes it the superior choice for compute-intensive tasks that rely on this API.
• Memory Throughput: Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is double that of the Quadro P400, making it better for large datasets and memory-bound operations.
• Raw FP32 Performance: With 691.2 GFLOPS, it edges out the Quadro's 641.0 GFLOPS, making it faster for general-purpose scientific calculations.

NVIDIA Quadro P400 Wins:

• Modern API Support: Its Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (12_1) support are more recent than the FirePro's Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1), making it more compatible with current software.
• Pixel Fill Rate: The 20.03 GPixel/s rate is nearly three times that of the FirePro, making it the clear winner for tasks involving high-resolution rendering and rasterization.
• Power Efficiency: With a TDP of just 30 W, it is far more suitable for low-power and compact systems.
• Vulkan Benchmark: Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 5119 is higher than the FirePro's OpenCL score of 5034, suggesting superior performance in modern, low-level graphics workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4170M | NVIDIA Quadro P400 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 950 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Base Clock | 825 MHz | 1228 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 900 MHz | 1252 MHz |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 32.06 GB/s |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Shading Units | 384 | 256 |

| TMUs | 24 | 16 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.200 GPixel/s | 20.03 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 20.03 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 691.2 GFLOPS | 641.0 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 30 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions (Length) | Not listed | 150 mm (5.9 inches) |

| Dimensions (Height) | Not listed | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 200 W |

| FP16 Performance | Not listed | 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| Release Date | 2015-04-22 | 2017-02-06 |

| Generation | FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) | Quadro Pascal (Px000) |

| Predecessor | FirePro Mobility | Quadro Maxwell |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Mobile | Quadro Volta |