AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two professional mobile and workstation graphics cards. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 takes the single recorded benchmark victory, winning the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4,979 against the AMD FirePro W4190M's 4,505. That is a 10.5% margin, a meaningful gap in raw compute performance as measured by OpenCL.

The AMD FirePro W4190M does not win any benchmark in the database. However, its profile is not purely about losing. The FirePro W4190M is a mobile part, using an MXM Module form factor with no power connectors, whereas the Quadro 4000 is a single-slot desktop workstation card requiring a 6-pin power connector. The use case split is therefore about form factor and deployment environment as much as raw scores. The Quadro 4000 wins on absolute compute output, but the FirePro W4190M is the only one of the two that can be slotted into a portable workstation chassis.

The percentile rankings reinforce this. The Quadro 4000 sits at the 29th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro W4190M sits at the 26th percentile. Both are lower-tier parts by modern standards, but the Quadro 4000 is positioned slightly higher overall.

FAQ

Q: Which card has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4,505. The Quadro 4000 leads by 10.5%.

Q: What is the form factor difference between the two cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 is a single-slot desktop card with a 241 mm length and a 6-pin power connector. The AMD FirePro W4190M is an MXM Module, which is a mobile form factor, and it has no power connectors.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. The Quadro 4000 uses a 256-bit bus with 89.86 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W4190M uses a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has a pixel rate of 7.600 GPixel/s, slightly ahead of the AMD FirePro W4190M's 7.200 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the transistor density difference?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M has a much higher transistor density at 12.3 million transistors per mm², compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 4000's 5.9 million per mm². This is due to the FirePro's smaller 77 mm² die.

Q: Which card supports Vulkan?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has no Vulkan support listed in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 scores 4,979 points, and the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4,505 points. The delta is 10.5% in favor of NVIDIA.

Contextualizing this score against their nearest rivals makes the result clearer. The Quadro 4000's 4,979 score places it 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4,970), 0.4% behind the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4,998), 0.8% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5,018), and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4,931). The Quadro 4000 is essentially trading blows with a modern mainstream GPU and some older integrated graphics parts.

The FirePro W4190M's 4,505 score puts it 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4,499), 1.2% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4,560), 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4,569), and 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4,577). The FirePro is clustered with low-end mobile and integrated solutions.

The 10.5% gap between the two cards means that in OpenCL compute workloads, the Quadro 4000 delivers roughly one-tenth more performance. This is a substantial margin for professional applications that rely on OpenCL acceleration.

The fill rate statistics support the same direction. The Quadro 4000 achieves 7.600 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s for the FirePro W4190M, a 5.6% advantage. In texture rate, however, the FirePro W4190M leads with 21.60 GTexel/s against 15.20 GTexel/s for the Quadro 4000, a 42.1% advantage. The FirePro has more texture units working at higher clocks, which gives it a clear win in texture-heavy workloads.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ substantially in their core configuration. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 has 256 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The AMD FirePro W4190M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The Quadro 4000 has four times the ROP count, which explains its higher pixel rate despite the FirePro's higher shading unit count.

Memory clocks differ significantly. The Quadro 4000 runs its GDDR5 at 702 MHz with 2.8 Gbps effective, while the FirePro W4190M runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective. The Quadro's wider 256-bit bus compensates for its lower clock speed, delivering 89.86 GB/s versus the FirePro's 64.00 GB/s.

The power profiles are completely different. The Quadro 4000 has a TDP of 142 W and requires a 300 W power supply, along with a 6-pin connector. The FirePro W4190M has no listed TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU, consistent with its mobile MXM design.

Bus interfaces differ as well. The Quadro 4000 uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the FirePro W4190M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The FirePro's newer standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the Quadro's x16 width gives it more total lanes.

Display outputs are another clear split. The Quadro 4000 offers 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort. The FirePro W4190M's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by the laptop chassis.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000 uses the GF100 chip built on the Fermi architecture. It is manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC, with 3,100 million transistors on a 529 mm² die. The transistor density is 5.9 million per mm². The FirePro W4190M uses the Opal chip on the GCN 1.0 architecture, also from TSMC, but on a 28 nm process. It packs 950 million transistors onto a 77 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.3 million per mm².

The architectural generation gap is significant. The Quadro 4000 belongs to the Quadro Fermi generation (x000 series), released in November 2010. The FirePro W4190M belongs to the FirePro Mobile generation (Wx100M series), released in November 2015. Five years of process improvement separate them, which explains the dramatic density difference.

Feature support reflects the newer architecture. The FirePro W4190M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro 4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support. Both support the same OpenGL version, but the Quadro's DirectX 11_0 feature level is one step behind the FirePro's 11_1.

Neither card has ray tracing cores or tensor cores. Both are end-of-life products. The Quadro 4000's predecessor is the Quadro FX Tesla and its successor is the Quadro Kepler. The FirePro W4190M's predecessor is the FirePro Mobility and its successor is the Radeon Pro Mobile.

The FP32 compute output favors the FirePro W4190M. It delivers 691.2 GFLOPS against the Quadro 4000's 486.4 GFLOPS, a 42.1% advantage that mirrors the texture rate difference. The FirePro's 384 shading units at higher clock speeds give it more raw floating-point throughput, even though the OpenCL benchmark score does not reflect that advantage.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice for raw compute performance: the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 wins the only recorded benchmark, scoring 4,979 versus 4,505, a 10.5% margin in Geekbench OpenCL. Its pixel rate is also higher at 7.600 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s. For users whose workloads depend on OpenCL acceleration and pixel throughput, the Quadro 4000 is the stronger option.

The AMD FirePro W4190M has its own advantages. It delivers 42.1% more FP32 compute (691.2 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS) and 42.1% higher texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s). It also supports Vulkan and a newer DirectX feature level. Its MXM form factor makes it the only viable choice for portable workstations, and its 28 nm process gives it a much smaller die (77 mm² versus 529 mm²) with higher transistor density.

The choice depends on the deployment scenario. A desktop workstation requiring maximum OpenCL benchmark scores and pixel fill rates should use the Quadro 4000. A mobile workstation that needs texture throughput, FP32 compute, and modern API support should use the FirePro W4190M. The Quadro 4000 wins the benchmark comparison, but the FirePro W4190M wins on architectural efficiency and portability.

The percentile rankings place both cards low in the overall GPU landscape: 29th percentile for the Quadro 4000 and 26th for the FirePro W4190M. Neither card is competitive with modern high-end GPUs. The nearest rivals for the Quadro 4000 include the GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB within 0.2%, while the FirePro W4190M sits within 1.6% of low-end Radeon and Intel parts. The Quadro 4000 is the better performer of the two, but both are legacy products best suited for specific professional roles rather than general-purpose compute.