AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA Quadro 4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between these two mobile workstation GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211 points, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505 points. That gives the NVIDIA part a 15.7% advantage in raw compute throughput as measured by this test. For context, the Quadro 4000M sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro W4190M lands at the 26th percentile. The gap is meaningful, but both parts are firmly in the entry-level mobile workstation segment.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card clarifies where they stand. The Quadro 4000M's closest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M, which scores 5236, a mere 0.5% higher. The Quadro also edges out the AMD Radeon R7 M260X (5161, 1% slower) and the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154, 1.1% slower), while trailing the GeForce 940M (5284) by 1.4%. So the Quadro 4000M is essentially performance-neutral with a cluster of mid-range consumer and workstation parts from its era. Its 5211 score is competitive within that group, not a standout but not a laggard either.

The FirePro W4190M's nearest rivals tell a different story. Its 4505 score is nearly identical to the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499, 0.1% slower) and the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, which is 1.2% faster). It also trails the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569, 1.4% faster) and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577, 1.6% faster). Notably, the FirePro W4190M is bracketed by integrated graphics and low-end discrete parts. The Intel HD Graphics P530 is an iGPU, and the FirePro only beats it by 1.2%. That places the AMD workstation card in a much weaker competitive position than the Quadro.

When comparing the two cards directly, the 15.7% delta is the headline number. The Quadro 4000M is not just slightly ahead; it is decisively faster in this OpenCL workload. The FirePro W4190M's advantage is in architecture efficiency and newer feature support, not raw throughput. The benchmark data shows one clear winner in performance, and it is the NVIDIA part.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M is the stronger performer. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 15.7%, and its absolute score of 5211 places it in a higher percentile bracket (30th vs 26th) than the AMD FirePro W4190M. If your priority is pure OpenCL compute performance, the Quadro is the obvious choice between these two.

However, the FirePro W4190M is not without merit. It is built on a much newer process node (28 nm vs 40 nm) and supports Vulkan 1.2.170, which the Quadro does not. The Quadro's DirectX support is limited to 12 (11_0), while the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1). For applications that rely on newer graphics APIs or Vulkan specifically, the AMD card has a feature-level advantage that no amount of raw OpenCL performance can compensate for.

The verdict splits cleanly: choose the Quadro 4000M for compute-bound OpenCL workloads where the 15.7% lead matters, and choose the FirePro W4190M for modern API compatibility, particularly Vulkan support. Neither card is a performance powerhouse by current standards, as both sit below the 30th percentile in the database, but they serve different software ecosystems.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M wins in raw compute. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5211 is 15.7% higher than the FirePro's 4505. This translates to an advantage in any workload that is heavily parallel and uses OpenCL, such as compute shaders, physics simulations, or general-purpose GPU tasks. The Quadro also has a wider memory bus (256 bit vs 128 bit) and significantly higher memory bandwidth (80.00 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s), which helps in memory-intensive operations. The data suggests the Quadro is the better choice for number-crunching tasks.

The AMD FirePro W4190M wins on architectural modernity and API support. Its GCN 1.0 architecture is paired with 28 nm manufacturing, versus the Quadro's 40 nm Fermi. The FirePro supports Vulkan 1.2.170, a major advantage for any Vulkan-based application or game. It also has a slightly higher pixel rate (7.200 GPixel/s vs 6.650 GPixel/s) despite having far fewer ROPs (8 vs 32), which indicates better per-ROP efficiency. The FirePro's boost clock of 900 MHz and base clock of 825 MHz are also explicitly defined, whereas the Quadro lists no base or boost clock, only memory clock. For software that leverages Vulkan or newer DirectX 11.1 features, the FirePro is the more compatible choice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M scores 5211 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 15.7% higher than the AMD FirePro W4190M's 4505.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W4190M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the FirePro W4190M supports Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro 4000M has no Vulkan support listed in the database.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The Quadro 4000M has a 256-bit memory bus with 80.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W4190M has a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Quadro 4000M is within 1.4% of its closest rivals (GeForce GTX 760M, Radeon R7 M260X, Quadro K3100M, GeForce 940M). The FirePro W4190M is within 1.6% of its closest rivals (Radeon R7 M260, HD Graphics P530, Radeon RX 560, Radeon R5 M230).

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M has a pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s, while the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M has 6.650 GPixel/s.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The Quadro 4000M has 1,950 million transistors on a 332 mm² die. The FirePro W4190M has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural eras. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M uses the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process, built by TSMC. It packs 1,950 million transistors into a 332 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 5.9 million per mm². The chip is designated GF104. Fermi was designed for compute-heavy workloads, and the Quadro's specs reflect that: 336 shading units, 56 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The memory system uses GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus.

The AMD FirePro W4190M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, also from TSMC. It has 950 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm², more than double the Quadro's density. The chip is codenamed Opal. GCN 1.0 was designed for asynchronous compute and better API efficiency. The FirePro has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. The ROP count is a major architectural difference: the Quadro has 4 times as many ROPs, yet the FirePro still achieves a higher pixel rate, which speaks to the efficiency gains of GCN.

The bus interface also differs. The Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), while the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are MXM modules for portable devices, and both have no power connectors, relying on the MXM slot for power. The Quadro has a TDP of 100 W, while the FirePro's TDP is not listed in the database.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on several specification points. The process node is the most obvious: 40 nm for the Quadro, 28 nm for the FirePro. This leads to the transistor and die size differences already noted: 1,950 million transistors on 332 mm² for NVIDIA, versus 950 million on 77 mm² for AMD.

Clock speeds are another differentiator. The Quadro lists no base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The FirePro has a base clock of 825 MHz, a boost clock of 900 MHz, and a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The FirePro's memory runs faster, but its bus is narrower, resulting in lower overall bandwidth.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity but different in bus width: both have 2 GB of GDDR5, but the Quadro uses a 256-bit bus for 80.00 GB/s, while the FirePro uses a 128-bit bus for 64.00 GB/s. The shading unit counts are 336 for NVIDIA and 384 for AMD, but the TMU and ROP counts are significantly higher on the NVIDIA part (56 TMUs and 32 ROPs versus 24 and 8 respectively). The FP32 compute is 638.4 GFLOPS for the Quadro and 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro, a rare case where AMD's smaller chip outputs more raw FLOPs, though it loses the OpenCL benchmark.

API support differs: the Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and no Vulkan. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Quadro was released on 2011-02-21, while the FirePro was released on 2015-11-11. Both are end-of-life products, but the Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro FX Mobile and its successor is the Quadro Kepler-M, while the FirePro's predecessor is the FirePro Mobility and its successor is the Radeon Pro Mobile.