AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA Quadro K3000M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4190M and NVIDIA Quadro K3000M are both end-of-life mobile workstation graphics solutions built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they target different generations of hardware. The data available for comparison is a single Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, which provides a clear, if narrow, view of their relative compute capabilities. This analysis will break down that head-to-head result, examine the architectural and specification differences that inform these outcomes, and answer common questions based solely on the provided facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results show a decisive, though not overwhelming, victory for the AMD FirePro W4190M. In this test, the AMD part scores 4505 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M trails with 4241 points. This translates to a 6.2% performance advantage for the AMD FirePro W4190M, a notable margin in mobile workstation GPUs where every point of compute throughput matters. This win places the AMD FirePro W4190M in the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M sits just one percentile lower at 25th, confirming that while both are near the lower end of modern performance scales, the AMD part holds a measurable edge in raw compute.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card reinforces this positioning. The AMD FirePro W4190M’s score of 4505 is virtually identical to that of the AMD Radeon R7 M260, which scores 4499, a difference of just 0.1%. It also slightly outperforms the Intel HD Graphics P530 by 1.2% and the AMD Radeon RX 560 by 1.4%, showing that its compute performance is competitive with a range of entry-level and integrated solutions. On the other side, the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M’s score of 4241 puts it in close competition with a different set of rivals. It is 0.6% behind the AMD Radeon Vega 3, 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M, and 1.3% behind the AMD FirePro W2100. Interestingly, it manages to beat the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti by 1.2%, a desktop-class card, which suggests its architecture is still capable of holding its own in certain compute workloads despite its age.

The delta of 6.2% between the two cards is the single most important data point in this comparison. It indicates that in a pure OpenCL compute scenario, the newer AMD architecture, despite having fewer shading units and a smaller memory bus, is able to generate more usable throughput than the older NVIDIA design. The benchmark results clearly indicate that the AMD FirePro W4190M is the faster card for general-purpose compute tasks, and this advantage is significant enough to be considered a primary factor in any purchasing decision between these two legacy parts.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the AMD FirePro W4190M is the unequivocal winner in the single tested discipline of OpenCL compute. Its 6.2% higher score suggests it is better suited for workloads that leverage GPGPU acceleration, such as video encoding, scientific simulations, and certain rendering tasks that utilize OpenCL. The data shows that the AMD FirePro W4190M’s GCN 1.0 architecture is more efficient at translating its raw resources into benchmark results. For users whose primary application relies heavily on OpenCL, the AMD FirePro W4190M is the clear choice.

The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M does not win any benchmark in this comparison, as it trails in the only head-to-head test. However, this does not mean it is without merit. Its architectural strengths lie in its higher raw specifications, such as more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs, as well as a wider memory bus. While these features do not translate into a win in the OpenCL test, they could potentially offer advantages in other, untested areas like specific OpenGL workloads or driver-optimized professional applications. The data, however, provides no evidence of a scenario where the Quadro K3000M wins. Therefore, based strictly on the provided facts, the AMD FirePro W4190M is the performance leader, and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M’s potential strengths remain speculative without further benchmark data.

In summary, the use-case split is straightforward: the AMD FirePro W4190M wins the compute benchmark, and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has no demonstrated winning scenario in this dataset. The decision for a user would likely come down to whether their specific software is more dependent on OpenCL compute performance, where AMD is superior, or if other factors like driver support or specific ISV certifications, which are not covered in this data, might favor the NVIDIA part.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M has a higher score of 4505, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M’s score of 4241, giving the AMD card a 6.2% lead.

Q: How does the AMD FirePro W4190M compare to its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 M260?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505, which is 0.1% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M260’s average score of 4499. The two are essentially performance equals in this benchmark.

Q: Is the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti?

A: Yes, the data shows the Quadro K3000M’s score of 4241 is 1.2% higher than the GeForce GTX 1050 Ti’s score of 4193.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count, and what is the difference?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has a significantly higher transistor count of 3,540 million, compared to the AMD FirePro W4190M’s 950 million. This is a difference of 2,590 million transistors.

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has substantially higher memory bandwidth at 89.60 GB/s, due to its 256-bit bus, while the AMD FirePro W4190M offers 64.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: What are the release dates for these two GPUs?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M was released on 2015-11-11, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M was released earlier, on 2012-05-31.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ significantly in their core specifications, reflecting their different design philosophies and release timelines. The most glaring difference is in the graphics chip itself. The AMD FirePro W4190M uses the "Opal" chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M uses the much larger "GK104" chip. The NVIDIA chip houses 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, whereas the AMD chip contains only 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Interestingly, the transistor density is nearly identical, with the AMD part at 12.3M / mm² and the NVIDIA part at 12.0M / mm².

Clock speeds also differ substantially. The AMD FirePro W4190M has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M runs at a static 654 MHz for both base and boost. Memory clocks follow a similar pattern, with the AMD card running at 1000 MHz (or 4 Gbps effective) and the NVIDIA card at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). However, the NVIDIA card compensates with a wider 256-bit memory bus versus the AMD card's 128-bit bus, resulting in a higher total bandwidth of 89.60 GB/s for NVIDIA compared to 64.00 GB/s for AMD. Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

The compute unit configurations are also starkly different. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M has 576 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). In contrast, the AMD FirePro W4190M is equipped with 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Despite the AMD card having fewer of these resources, its higher clock speeds and architectural efficiency allow it to achieve a higher pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s compared to NVIDIA's 7.848 GPixel/s, though NVIDIA leads in texture rate with 31.39 GTexel/s versus AMD's 21.60 GTexel/s. In terms of raw floating-point performance (FP32), the NVIDIA card edges out the AMD card with 753.4 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. The NVIDIA card has a specified TDP of 75 W, while the AMD card's TDP is not listed. Finally, the bus interface differs, with the AMD card using PCIe 3.0 x8 and the NVIDIA card using MXM-B (3.0).

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two GPUs is fundamental, representing two different design eras from their respective manufacturers. The AMD FirePro W4190M is built on the Graphics Core Next (GCN) 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M utilizes the Kepler architecture. This difference in architecture is the primary reason for their divergent performance characteristics, despite the NVIDIA card having more raw hardware resources.

The AMD FirePro W4190M is part of the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation and is based on the "Opal" chip. Its GCN architecture is designed for compute-heavy workloads, which is reflected in its superior OpenCL benchmark performance despite having fewer shading units and a smaller memory bus. The NVIDIA Quadro K3000M, on the other hand, belongs to the Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M) generation and uses the "GK104" chip. Kepler was designed with a focus on power efficiency and geometry processing, but its compute capabilities, while present, are not as strong per clock as GCN in the tested OpenCL scenario.

The process nodes are identical, with both being fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The key architectural differentiator is the design philosophy: GCN 1.0 favors parallel compute throughput, while Kepler focuses on a more balanced workload with a higher emphasis on raw shading and texture capabilities. The APIs supported also show a slight difference, with the AMD card supporting DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the NVIDIA card supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The NVIDIA card's larger transistor count and die size indicate a much more complex design, but the benchmark data shows that architectural efficiency can be more important than sheer hardware scale. The AMD FirePro W4190M, with its GCN architecture, successfully translates its smaller footprint into a faster OpenCL result, making it the architecturally superior choice for this specific workflow.