AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2000D Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 15% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D's score of 3919.

Q: How do these two cards compare in terms of memory configuration?

A: Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with identical 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks are also the same at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the transistor and die size differences between the two?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D uses 1,270 million transistors on a 118 mm² die, while the AMD FirePro W4190M uses 950 million transistors on a smaller 77 mm² die. Despite this, AMD achieves a higher transistor density of 12.3M / mm² versus NVIDIA's 10.8M / mm².

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D leads in pixel rate with 7.632 GPixel/s, slightly ahead of the AMD FirePro W4190M's 7.200 GPixel/s. The NVIDIA card also has 16 ROPs versus 8 on the AMD card.

Q: What is the difference in texture processing capability?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D has 32 TMUs and a texture rate of 30.53 GTexel/s, while the AMD FirePro W4190M has 24 TMUs and a texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s. This gives NVIDIA a significant 41% advantage in texture throughput.

Q: Do both cards support the same API levels?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan, but the AMD FirePro W4190M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) while the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D supports DirectX 12 (11_0). The AMD card also lists Vulkan 1.2.170 compared to NVIDIA's 1.2.175.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear but nuanced picture. The AMD FirePro W4190M wins the sole recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 4505 against the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D's 3919, a 15% margin. This places the AMD card in the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA card sits at the 23rd percentile.

For professionals prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL workloads, the AMD FirePro W4190M is the stronger choice. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (0.1% lower), Intel HD Graphics P530 (1.2% higher), and AMD Radeon RX 560 (1.4% higher), indicating it clusters with mainstream mobile-class parts. The NVIDIA Quadro K2000D, by contrast, sits near the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D (0.3% higher) and NVIDIA Quadro 2000 (0.5% lower), placing it in a slightly lower performance tier.

However, the NVIDIA card counters with structural advantages in texture and pixel processing. With 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs versus 24 and 8 respectively, the Quadro K2000D delivers a 41% higher texture rate and a 6% higher pixel rate. For geometry-heavy rendering tasks, the NVIDIA card may hold an edge.

The AMD card is a mobile MXM module, while the NVIDIA card is a single-slot desktop card with 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort outputs. The NVIDIA card has a TDP of 51 W and suggests a 250 W PSU, while AMD lists no TDP. The AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The NVIDIA card also carries a launch MSRP of 599 USD.

The verdict: choose the AMD FirePro W4190M for OpenCL compute tasks and mobile integration, choose the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D for desktop workstation use where texture throughput and multi-display output matter more.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD FirePro W4190M wins this test outright with a score of 4505, against the NVIDIA Quadro K2000D's 3919. This represents a 15% delta in favor of AMD.

The 15% margin is substantial in the context of their nearest rivals. The AMD card's closest competitor, the AMD Radeon R7 M260, trails by just 0.1%, meaning the FirePro W4190M barely edges out its closest peer. On the NVIDIA side, the Quadro K2000D's nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro 2000D, is only 0.3% ahead, while the Quadro 2000 sits 0.5% behind. The two cards' percentile rankings (26th for AMD, 23rd for NVIDIA) confirm that the AMD card sits in a slightly higher performance bracket overall.

The compute capability gap is notable given the architectural differences. The AMD card's FP32 throughput is 691.2 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA card reaches 732.7 GFLOPS, a 6% advantage for NVIDIA in raw floating-point math. Yet the OpenCL benchmark favors AMD by 15%. This suggests the measured workload responds to factors beyond raw FP32, possibly memory access patterns or driver optimization, rather than pure arithmetic capability.

The NVIDIA card's texture rate advantage is more pronounced: 30.53 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. With 32 TMUs versus 24, NVIDIA processes textures 41% faster. The pixel rates are closer, 7.632 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s, reflecting NVIDIA's 16 ROPs against AMD's 8, though the 6% delta is modest.

In the single recorded benchmark, AMD wins decisively. But the structural specs suggest the NVIDIA card would perform relatively better in texture-bound workloads. The head-to-head record shows one win for AMD and zero for NVIDIA, but the underlying hardware differences tell a more complex story.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across several key specifications:

Chip and Architecture: AMD uses the Opal chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, while NVIDIA uses the GK107 chip based on Kepler architecture. AMD's generation is FirePro Mobile (Wx100M), NVIDIA's is Quadro Kepler (Kx000).

Process and Physical: Both use 28 nm TSMC process, but AMD's die is 77 mm² with 950 million transistors, while NVIDIA's die is 118 mm² with 1,270 million transistors. AMD achieves higher transistor density at 12.3M / mm² versus 10.8M / mm².

Clocks: AMD lists base clock of 825 MHz and boost clock of 900 MHz. NVIDIA lists no base or boost clock. Memory clocks are identical at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Memory: Both have 2 GB GDDR5 on 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. No differences here.

Shading Units: Both have 384 shading units, but AMD has 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs, while NVIDIA has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs.

Rates: AMD's pixel rate is 7.200 GPixel/s, texture rate 21.60 GTexel/s, FP32 691.2 GFLOPS. NVIDIA's pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s, texture rate 30.53 GTexel/s, FP32 732.7 GFLOPS.

Power and Form Factor: AMD has no listed TDP, uses an MXM Module slot width, and no power connectors. NVIDIA has a 51 W TDP, is single-slot, no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU.

Bus Interface: AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8, NVIDIA uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

Display Outputs: AMD's are portable device dependent, NVIDIA has 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.

Dimensions: NVIDIA is 202 mm (8 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. AMD has no listed dimensions.

API Support: AMD supports DirectX 12 (11_1), NVIDIA supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6. AMD lists Vulkan 1.2.170, NVIDIA lists 1.2.175.

Release Dates: AMD released 2015-11-11, NVIDIA released 2013-02-28. Both are end-of-life.

Launch MSRP: NVIDIA's launch MSRP was 599 USD. AMD has no listed MSRP.

Architecture Differences

The underlying architectures diverge significantly. AMD's FirePro W4190M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture built on the Opal chip, a first-generation Graphics Core Next design. NVIDIA's Quadro K2000D uses the Kepler architecture built on the GK107 chip, a design focused on energy efficiency and balanced compute.

Transistor budgets differ substantially: NVIDIA packs 1,270 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, while AMD fits 950 million into 77 mm². AMD's higher transistor density (12.3M / mm²) indicates a more compact layout, while NVIDIA's larger die provides more physical room for its 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs.

The compute layouts are asymmetric. Both cards have 384 shading units, but NVIDIA allocates more to texture units (32 versus 24) and ROPs (16 versus 8). This explains the NVIDIA card's 41% texture rate advantage and 6% pixel rate advantage. AMD's architecture prioritizes a different balance, with fewer fixed-function units but a higher clock ceiling (900 MHz boost versus no listed boost for NVIDIA).

FP32 performance slightly favors NVIDIA at 732.7 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS, a 6% difference. The clock rates help explain this: AMD's base clock is 825 MHz with a 900 MHz boost, and while NVIDIA lists no clocks, its FP32 output implies a working frequency near AMD's boost range.

The memory subsystem is identical, with 2 GB GDDR5, 128-bit bus, and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth on both cards. This means bandwidth is not a differentiator, and the OpenCL benchmark delta of 15% must come from compute efficiency or driver behavior rather than memory throughput.

API support differs slightly. AMD supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus NVIDIA's 12 (11_0), a minor version advantage for AMD. Both support OpenGL 4.6. Vulkan support is close, with NVIDIA listing 1.2.175 against AMD's 1.2.170, a trivial version difference.

The bus interface is another architectural distinction: AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while NVIDIA uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The AMD card's newer bus generation offers higher per-lane bandwidth, though the x8 width limits total throughput versus NVIDIA's x16 on PCIe 2.0.

Power characteristics differ, with NVIDIA listing a 51 W TDP and a 250 W suggested PSU, while AMD lists no TDP. The NVIDIA card's single-slot desktop form factor with 2x DVI and 1x mini-DisplayPort contrasts with AMD's mobile MXM module with portable-device-dependent outputs.

The generations reflect different market timing: AMD's FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) launched in late 2015, while NVIDIA's Quadro Kepler (Kx000) launched in early 2013. Both are end-of-life, with AMD's successor being Radeon Pro Mobile and NVIDIA's being Quadro Maxwell.