AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA Quadro K2100M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4190M and NVIDIA Quadro K2100M are both end-of-life mobile workstation GPUs, but their benchmark results place them in a near-dead heat. In the only direct benchmark comparison available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K2100M edges out the FirePro W4190M with a score of 4587 versus 4505, a margin of just 1.8%. In terms of overall percentile ranking, the FirePro sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro sits at the 25th, meaning both are positioned in the lower quarter of the performance spectrum.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL result is the single point of direct comparison, and it shows a statistical tie. The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4587, which is a 1.8% advantage over the AMD FirePro W4190M’s 4505. This delta is smaller than the performance gap between either card and its own nearest rivals. For instance, the FirePro’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M260 with an average score of 4499, a difference of just 0.1%. The Quadro’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon R5 M330 at 4170, a 0.4% difference. The data suggests that in raw compute throughput, these two mobile workstation cards are functionally equivalent, with the NVIDIA card holding a razor-thin but consistent lead.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the Quadro K2100M shows more versatility in its benchmark suite. It has results in three separate tests: 4587 in Geekbench OpenCL, 4343 in Geekbench Vulkan, and 3524 in Geekbench Metal. The FirePro W4190M only has a single recorded Geekbench OpenCL result of 4505. While the OpenCL scores are close, the Quadro’s additional Vulkan and Metal scores suggest it has a more complete driver stack for modern compute APIs, even though its raw OpenCL score is only marginally higher. The FirePro’s absence of Vulkan and Metal data leaves its performance in those APIs unquantified.

The average benchmark scores further illustrate the narrow gap. The FirePro’s average benchmark score is 4505, which is identical to its single OpenCL score. The Quadro’s average across all three tests is 4151, dragged down by its relatively lower Metal score of 3524. This means that while the Quadro wins the head-to-head OpenCL test, its average benchmark score is actually lower than the FirePro’s, because the Metal test is a significant outlier. In the nearestRivals data, the Quadro’s average of 4151 places it 1.9% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics 630 and 1.4% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 8 GB, while the FirePro’s average of 4505 puts it 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M230.

The pixel and texture rates tell a similar story of NVIDIA’s slight edge in raw throughput. The Quadro achieves a pixel rate of 8.004 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 32.02 GTexel/s, while the FirePro manages 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s respectively. That is an 11% advantage in pixel fill rate and a 48% advantage in texture fill rate for the NVIDIA part. In floating-point performance, the Quadro’s 768.4 GFLOPS is 11% higher than the FirePro’s 691.2 GFLOPS. These architectural throughput metrics suggest the Quadro has more raw compute resources available, even if the OpenCL benchmark result does not fully reflect that margin.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different architectural generations, though both are built on the same 28 nm TSMC process node. The AMD FirePro W4190M is based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Opal chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK106S chip. The transistor counts are drastically different: the NVIDIA chip packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the AMD chip has only 950 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die. This results in a higher transistor density for the AMD part at 12.3M / mm² versus 11.5M / mm² for NVIDIA.

The compute unit configurations differ significantly. The NVIDIA Quadro has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The AMD FirePro has only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the AMD part runs at higher clocks: 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost, compared to the NVIDIA’s fixed 667 MHz base and boost. This clock advantage helps the FirePro close some of the gap in raw compute, but the NVIDIA part’s superior texture and ROP counts give it the edge in fill-rate-bound workloads.

Memory configurations are similar in capacity but differ in speed. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. However, the AMD FirePro runs its memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA Quadro runs its memory at 752 MHz (3 Gbps effective), yielding only 48.13 GB/s. This gives the AMD part a 33% bandwidth advantage, which could be significant in memory-heavy compute tasks. The bus interface also differs: the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the Quadro uses MXM-A (3.0), which is a module-specific interface.

The feature sets diverge on API support. The AMD FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA Quadro supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Vulkan versions are nearly identical, but the DirectX support differs: AMD lists 11_1 while NVIDIA lists 11_0. Both are rated for the same 55 W TDP on the NVIDIA side, while the AMD part has no listed TDP in the data. Neither card requires external power connectors, and both are MXM Module form factors with portable-device-dependent display outputs.

The generational context is also distinct. The FirePro W4190M belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation, released on November 11, 2015, and is the successor to FirePro Mobility, with Radeon Pro Mobile as its successor. The Quadro K2100M belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M) generation, released on July 22, 2013, and is the successor to Quadro Fermi-M, with Quadro Maxwell-M as its successor. The Quadro is over two years older but remains competitive.

The Verdict

The data supports a narrow victory for the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M in the only direct benchmark comparison, but the story is more nuanced. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro wins by 1.8%, a margin that is within the noise of the nearestRivals data. The Quadro also has a clear advantage in texture and pixel fill rates (48% and 11% respectively) and in FP32 throughput (11% higher), which suggests it is better equipped for geometry-heavy and shader-heavy workloads. Its higher shading unit count (576 vs 384) and ROP count (16 vs 8) give it more parallel execution resources, even at lower clocks.

However, the AMD FirePro W4190M counters with a 33% memory bandwidth advantage (64.00 GB/s vs 48.13 GB/s) and a higher average benchmark score (4505 vs 4151). The FirePro’s single OpenCL score of 4505 is within 1.8% of the Quadro’s best OpenCL result, and its average score is actually 8.5% higher than the Quadro’s average of 4151, which is pulled down by the Quadro’s weak Metal score of 3524. For users targeting OpenCL workloads specifically, the two are nearly interchangeable.

The recommendation depends on the workload. For users running compute tasks that are memory-bandwidth-bound, the AMD FirePro W4190M’s higher bandwidth is the decisive factor. For users running tasks that are shader-bound or rely on Vulkan, the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has the edge, with its Vulkan score of 4343 being its second-best result. The Quadro also has a lower percentile rank (25 vs 26), which is contradictory, but that is driven by its lower average score. In a head-to-head, the Quadro wins the OpenCL test, but the FirePro’s average score suggests it may be more consistent in typical workstation compute.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4190M | NVIDIA Quadro K2100M |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 950 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 825 MHz | 667 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 900 MHz | 667 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps) | 752 MHz (3 Gbps) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 48.13 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 576 |

| Texture Mapping Units | 24 | 48 |

| Raster Operation Pipelines | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.200 GPixel/s | 8.004 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 32.02 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 691.2 GFLOPS | 768.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 55 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Release Date | 2015-11-11 | 2013-07-22 |

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M scores 4587, which is 1.8% higher than the AMD FirePro W4190M’s 4505.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two cards?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M offers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 33% higher than the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M’s 48.13 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has 576 shading units, compared to the AMD FirePro W4190M’s 384 shading units.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M has an average benchmark score of 4505, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M has an average of 4151, making the AMD part 8.5% higher on average.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M was released on 2015-11-11, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M was released earlier on 2013-07-22.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No, the AMD FirePro W4190M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the NVIDIA Quadro K2100M supports DirectX 12 (11_0).