AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA Quadro 2000 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4190M and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 are both end-of-life professional GPUs that now occupy the low end of the historical performance spectrum, sitting at the 26th and 23rd percentiles respectively against all GPUs in the database. Despite the near overlap in their percentile placement, the recorded data shows a clear gap between them: the FirePro W4190M leads the only shared benchmark by 15.6 percent, a margin that reflects a newer architecture, a denser process node, and twice the memory capacity. This analysis walks through the measured results, the architectural differences behind them, and the specification gaps that separate a mobile MXM module from a desktop workstation card.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison point between these two cards, and it favors the AMD product decisively. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro W4190M scores 4505 against the Quadro 2000's 3898, a 15.6 percent advantage for the W4190M. For context, that margin is larger than the gap separating either card from most of its own nearest rivals, which cluster within roughly 2 percent of their respective reference scores.

Contextualizing each score against its rivals makes the gap clearer. The FirePro W4190M's 4505 sits essentially level with the AMD Radeon R7 M260 at 4499, a delta of just 0.1 percent, and within striking distance of the Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 (a 1.2 percent deficit), the AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4569 (1.4 percent behind), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4577 (1.6 percent behind). In other words, the W4190M competes in a band that includes cards released well after it.

The Quadro 2000's 3898 places it among the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics at 3883 (0.4 percent ahead), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D at 3919 (0.5 percent behind), the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D at 3930 (0.8 percent behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M at 3953 (1.4 percent behind). That is a tightly packed cluster, and the W4190M's score of 4505 clears every one of the Quadro 2000's rivals by a wide margin, exceeding even the GeForce GT 745M's score by a comfortable distance.

The head-to-head record is therefore one win for the FirePro W4190M and zero for the Quadro 2000. The data shows no test in which the Quadro 2000 comes out ahead. Its architectural fill rates tell a similar story: the Quadro 2000 delivers 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s, while the W4190M manages 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s. The pixel rate advantage belongs to AMD by a substantial relative margin, and the texture rate, where the Quadro 2000's higher TMU count might have helped, still tilts toward the W4190M because of its faster clocks.

Architecture Differences

These two cards belong to different eras of GPU design, and the numbers make that generational gap obvious. The FirePro W4190M is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, fabbed at TSMC on a 28 nm process, with the chip known as Opal. The Quadro 2000 uses the Fermi architecture, chip GF106, manufactured at TSMC on a much older 40 nm process. The node difference translates directly into density: the W4190M packs 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, or 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter, while the Quadro 2000 spreads 1,170 million transistors across 238 mm², only 4.9 million per square millimeter.

The Quadro 2000 actually uses more transistors on a die more than three times larger, yet delivers less measured performance. That is the clearest illustration of the architectural efficiency gap in this comparison: the GCN-based design achieves a higher benchmark score with fewer transistors and a fraction of the silicon area. Raw compute confirms it, with the W4190M rated at 691.2 GFLOPS FP32 against the Quadro 2000's 480.0 GFLOPS.

The core configuration reflects each vendor's priorities. The W4190M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The Quadro 2000 has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. AMD doubled down on shading throughput per clock through its GCN design, while NVIDIA's Fermi card carries more texture and raster output hardware, though not enough to win the measured fill-rate contest given the W4190M's clock speeds of 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. The Quadro 2000's clock data in the database covers only its memory, which runs at 650 MHz for 2.6 Gbps effective, versus the W4190M's memory at 1000 MHz for 4 Gbps effective.

Feature support also diverges. The W4190M offers DirectX 12 with feature level 11_1 and Vulkan 1.2.170, alongside OpenGL 4.6. The Quadro 2000 supports DirectX 12 at the older 11_0 feature level and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan support recorded. For anything dependent on modern API levels, the W4190M has the broader recorded feature set.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M. It scores 4505 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the Quadro 2000's 3898, a 15.6 percent advantage, and it wins the only head-to-head test in the database.

Q: How do the two compare in FP32 compute throughput?

A: The W4190M delivers 691.2 GFLOPS against the Quadro 2000's 480.0 GFLOPS. The W4190M achieves this with 384 shading units versus 192 on the Quadro 2000.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The W4190M, with 64.00 GB/s from its GDDR5 memory running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) over a 128-bit bus. The Quadro 2000 also uses GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus but reaches only 41.60 GB/s, with memory clocked at 650 MHz (2.6 Gbps effective).

Q: Do these GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and DirectX 12, but at different feature levels: 11_1 on the W4190M versus 11_0 on the Quadro 2000. Only the W4190M has recorded Vulkan support, at version 1.2.170.

Q: Which product is newer?

A: The FirePro W4190M, released 2015-11-11, while the Quadro 2000 dates to 2010-12-23. Both are now end-of-life; the W4190M was succeeded by Radeon Pro Mobile and the Quadro 2000 by Quadro Kepler.

Q: How do they compare in power and physical format?

A: The Quadro 2000 is a single-slot desktop card with a 62 W TDP, a suggested 250 W PSU, and dimensions of 178 mm length by 111 mm height. The W4190M is an MXM mobile module with no TDP or PSU figure recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every recorded specification. On process, the W4190M uses 28 nm against the Quadro 2000's 40 nm. Die size is 77 mm² versus 238 mm², transistor count 950 million versus 1,170 million, and density 12.3M versus 4.9M transistors per square millimeter. Shading units stand at 384 versus 192, TMUs at 24 versus 32, and ROPs at 8 versus 16.

Memory capacity is 2 GB on the W4190M versus 1024 MB on the Quadro 2000, with bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s versus 41.60 GB/s across an identical 128-bit GDDR5 bus. Fill rates favor the W4190M at 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s, against 5.000 GPixel/s and 20.00 GTexel/s for the Quadro 2000. FP32 compute is 691.2 GFLOPS versus 480.0 GFLOPS.

Form factor separates them completely: the W4190M is an MXM module with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs, while the Quadro 2000 is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 desktop card with a 62 W TDP, a 250 W suggested PSU, no power connectors, and one DVI plus two DisplayPort outputs. The W4190M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are end-of-life, and the Quadro 2000 carries a recorded launch MSRP of 599 USD, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the W4190M.

The Verdict

The data points to the FirePro W4190M in every measured category. It is 15.6 percent faster in the shared OpenCL benchmark, delivers roughly 44 percent more FP32 compute throughput, provides twice the memory capacity and substantially more bandwidth, and supports a newer DirectX feature level plus Vulkan. It also does this on a far smaller die with fewer transistors, which speaks to the efficiency of its GCN 1.0 design relative to Fermi.

The Quadro 2000's case rests on factors outside raw performance. It is a desktop single-slot card with fixed display outputs, one DVI and two DisplayPort, and a defined 62 W TDP, which matters for legacy workstations with a specific slot and output configuration. Its rivals in the database include other Quadro models such as the K2000D and 2000D, indicating it sits within NVIDIA's professional ecosystem of that era.

For anyone choosing between them on performance grounds, the recorded results leave no ambiguity: the W4190M wins the only benchmark comparison, sits at the 26th percentile versus the 23rd for the Quadro 2000, and matches or beats it on every fill-rate and compute metric in the database. The Quadro 2000 remains relevant only where a desktop PCIe 2.0 x16 single-slot form factor with its specific display outputs is the requirement, since the W4190M exists only as an MXM mobile module with device-dependent outputs.