AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA Quadro 3000M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the AMD FirePro W4190M and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M compare in overall benchmark performance?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718. This gives the AMD part a 21.2% lead in that specific workload.

Q: What are the architectural generations of these two mobile workstation GPUs?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M is based on the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M uses the Fermi architecture with the GF104 chip. They belong to different design eras and process nodes.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M has a pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s, which is significantly higher than the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's 4.500 GPixel/s.

Q: How do their memory subsystems differ?

A: Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M uses a 256-bit bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the AMD FirePro W4190M uses a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA part has a wider interface and higher bandwidth.

Q: What does the percentile ranking tell us about each card?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M sits in the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M sits in the 22nd percentile. Both are near the lower end, but the AMD card ranks slightly higher.

Q: Which GPU has higher shader and texture throughput?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M delivers 691.2 GFLOPS FP32 and 21.60 GTexel/s, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's 432.0 GFLOPS FP32 and 18.00 GTexel/s. The AMD card wins on both raw compute and texture rate.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a single head-to-head test, and the AMD FirePro W4190M takes the only recorded win. In the Geekbench OpenCL workload, the AMD card scores 4505 against the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's 3718, a difference of 21.2%. This result indicates that for compute-oriented OpenCL tasks, the FirePro W4190M is the stronger performer.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M does not win any recorded benchmark in this comparison. However, the data does reveal areas where the NVIDIA card has structural advantages that do not translate into a benchmark victory. Its memory bandwidth is 80.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s for the AMD card, which could benefit bandwidth-sensitive workloads not captured in the single OpenCL test. The NVIDIA card also has a larger 256-bit memory bus, compared to the AMD card's 128-bit bus, and more ROPs (32 versus 8), which could matter for pixel-heavy rendering tasks.

For pure compute throughput, the AMD FirePro W4190M leads in both FP32 performance (691.2 GFLOPS versus 432.0 GFLOPS) and texture fill rate (21.60 GTexel/s versus 18.00 GTexel/s). The AMD card also has more shading units (384 versus 240), which aligns with its higher compute output. In the recorded data, the AMD FirePro W4190M wins the only benchmark, so any use-case split must acknowledge that the NVIDIA card's advantages are theoretical rather than observed in this dataset.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro W4190M and NVIDIA Quadro 3000M come from different architectural lineages. The AMD card uses GCN 1.0, a Graphics Core Next design that emphasizes parallel compute throughput with 384 shading units. The NVIDIA card uses Fermi, an older architecture that relies on 240 shading units arranged in a different configuration. This fundamental design difference explains why the AMD card delivers 691.2 GFLOPS FP32 performance, a 60% advantage over the NVIDIA card's 432.0 GFLOPS.

The manufacturing processes also differ substantially. The AMD FirePro W4190M is built on a 28 nm node at TSMC, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M uses a 40 nm node, also at TSMC. The AMD chip packs 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The NVIDIA GF104 chip contains 1,950 million transistors across a 332 mm² die, resulting in a much lower density of 5.9M per mm². These figures reflect the generational gap: the AMD card was released later (2015) than the NVIDIA card (2011).

The AMD FirePro W4190M supports Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has no Vulkan support listed. Both cards support DirectX 12, but with different feature levels: the AMD card supports 12 (11_1), while the NVIDIA card supports 12 (11_0). OpenGL 4.6 is available on both. The NVIDIA card has a TDP of 75 W, while the AMD card's TDP is not listed in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every major specification. In terms of compute resources, the AMD FirePro W4190M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M has 240 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The AMD card has more shading units for compute, but the NVIDIA card has more texture mapping units and significantly more ROPs.

Clock speeds also differ. The AMD card operates at a base clock of 825 MHz with a boost clock of 900 MHz. The NVIDIA card has no base or boost clock listed, but its memory runs at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), compared to the AMD card's memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The AMD card's memory clock is substantially higher.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity but different in layout. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the AMD card uses a 128-bit bus providing 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA card uses a 256-bit bus providing 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card has a wider memory path and higher total bandwidth.

The process node and physical characteristics differ as well. The AMD card is built on 28 nm with a 77 mm² die and 950 million transistors. The NVIDIA card is built on 40 nm with a 332 mm² die and 1,950 million transistors. The AMD card is much smaller and denser. Both use the MXM Module slot form factor with no power connectors. The AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA card uses MXM-B (3.0). Both have portable device dependent display outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. Here, the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M scores 3718. This gives the AMD card a 21.2% lead, a substantial margin for a single workload comparison. The AMD card's nearest rival in the database is the AMD Radeon R7 M260 with an average score of 4499, a delta of only 0.1%. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M with an average score of 3717, effectively identical.

The AMD FirePro W4190M sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M sits at the 22nd percentile. The AMD card's average benchmark score of 4505 places it above its nearest rivals, including the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, delta -1.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569, delta -1.4%), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577, delta -1.6%). The NVIDIA card's average score of 3718 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M (3740, delta -0.6%) and the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (3694, delta 0.6%), with the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649, delta 1.9%) slightly behind.

The single benchmark win for the AMD card aligns with its other compute advantages. The FirePro W4190M has 691.2 GFLOPS FP32, which is 60% higher than the Quadro 3000M's 432.0 GFLOPS. Its texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s also exceeds the NVIDIA card's 18.00 GTexel/s. The pixel rate tells a similar story: 7.200 GPixel/s for the AMD card versus 4.500 GPixel/s for the NVIDIA card. The NVIDIA card's only clear specification wins are memory bandwidth (80.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s) and ROP count (32 versus 8), neither of which appears in the recorded benchmark results.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD FirePro W4190M is the clear winner in the single benchmark where both cards are compared. The Geekbench OpenCL score of 4505 versus 3718 represents a 21.2% advantage, which is consistent with the AMD card's higher FP32 throughput, texture rate, and pixel rate. Users whose workloads rely on OpenCL compute should choose the AMD FirePro W4190M based on this evidence.

The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M, however, has structural advantages that the benchmark does not capture. Its 256-bit memory bus and 80.00 GB/s bandwidth exceed the AMD card's 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. For workloads that are heavily bandwidth-bound, the NVIDIA card could potentially perform better, but no such benchmark appears in the database. Its 32 ROPs also suggest stronger pixel output capabilities, though the measured pixel rate is lower at 4.500 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s.

The percentile data places the AMD card at the 26th percentile and the NVIDIA card at the 22nd percentile. Both are low-ranking GPUs by modern standards, reflecting their end-of-life status and mobile workstation origins. The AMD card was released in 2015, while the NVIDIA card dates to 2011, which explains the architectural gap: GCN 1.0 on 28 nm versus Fermi on 40 nm. The AMD card's smaller die (77 mm² versus 332 mm²) and higher transistor density (12.3M per mm² versus 5.9M per mm²) indicate a more modern design.

For a user choosing between these two mobile workstation GPUs, the data points to the AMD FirePro W4190M for compute-oriented tasks. It wins the only recorded benchmark, offers higher raw compute numbers, and ranks slightly better among all GPUs. The NVIDIA Quadro 3000M retains a memory bandwidth advantage that might matter in specific scenarios, but the database provides no evidence that this translates into a performance win. The verdict, based strictly on the recorded measurements, favors the AMD FirePro W4190M.