GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M and AMD FirePro W4190M are both end-of-life mobile workstation graphics cards built on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but they occupy very different performance tiers. The Quadro M3000M leverages NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture with 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, while the FirePro W4190M uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture with just 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. In the single shared benchmark, the Quadro M3000M delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score of 16,646, which is 269.5% higher than the FirePro W4190M’s 4,505. This gap reflects fundamental differences in compute resources, memory bandwidth, and feature support, making the Quadro M3000M the clear choice for GPU-intensive workloads, while the FirePro W4190M serves lighter professional tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M has an average benchmark score of 4,621, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4,505. This places the Quadro M3000M in the 27th percentile of all GPUs, just ahead of the FirePro W4190M’s 26th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The Quadro M3000M scores 16,646 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the FirePro W4190M scores 4,505. The Quadro M3000M leads by 269.5%, a dominant margin that reflects its larger die and higher shader count.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each card?

A: The Quadro M3000M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, which averages 4,628, only 0.1% higher. The FirePro W4190M’s closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M260, which averages 4,499, putting it 0.1% behind the FirePro.

Q: Which card uses more transistors and a larger die?

A: The Quadro M3000M integrates 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die, whereas the FirePro W4190M is built with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The Quadro M3000M’s die is more than five times larger.

Q: Do both cards support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro W4190M supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The Quadro M3000M’s higher feature level allows for more advanced rendering techniques.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference?

A: The Quadro M3000M comes with 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, yielding 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W4190M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s, less than half the bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two mobile workstation GPUs is stark. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M is based on the GM204 chip using Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 5,200 million transistors into a 398 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 13.1M per mm². In contrast, the AMD FirePro W4190M uses the Opal chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with only 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die and a lower density of 12.3M per mm².

The compute resources differ enormously. The Quadro M3000M features 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 32 render output units (ROPs). The FirePro W4190M has just 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This translates to theoretical peak rates of 1.892 TFLOPS FP32, 59.14 GTexel/s texture fill, and 29.57 GPixel/s pixel fill for the Quadro M3000M, versus 691.2 GFLOPS FP32, 21.60 GTexel/s, and 7.200 GPixel/s for the FirePro W4190M.

Clock speeds are similar, the Quadro M3000M runs at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost, while the FirePro W4190M operates at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. However, the memory subsystem sets them apart: the Quadro M3000M uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 1,253 MHz memory clock (5 Gbps effective), delivering 160.4 GB/s. The FirePro W4190M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), for 64.00 GB/s. Both cards are MXM modules with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs, but the Quadro M3000M uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface while the FirePro W4190M uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

API support also differs. The Quadro M3000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W4190M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both are end-of-life products, with the Quadro M3000M released in August 2015 and the FirePro W4190M in November 2015.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are decisively one-sided. The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M scores 16,646, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4,505. That represents a 269.5% advantage for the Quadro M3000M. To put this in perspective, the FirePro W4190M would need to more than triple its score to match the Quadro M3000M.

This single benchmark encapsulates the broader performance gap. The Quadro M3000M’s average benchmark score of 4,621 is derived from nine tests, including Passmark G3D (5,543), Passmark G2D (402), and Passmark GPU Compute (2,139), plus DirectX 9 through 12 tests ranging from 23 to 98. The FirePro W4190M’s average of 4,505 is based solely on its Geekbench OpenCL result. Even with fewer data points, the FirePro W4190M’s percentile ranking (26th) is nearly identical to the Quadro M3000M’s (27th), but the absolute performance ceiling is far lower.

The nearest-rival data further contextualizes the Quadro M3000M’s standing. Its closest competitor, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, averages 4,628, just 0.1% higher. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 trails by 1%. For the FirePro W4190M, the AMD Radeon R7 M260 is 0.1% behind, while the Intel HD Graphics P530 is 1.2% ahead. These figures suggest that while both cards sit in a similar percentile band, the Quadro M3000M’s raw OpenCL dominance is unmatched by the FirePro W4190M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge across nearly every specification. The Quadro M3000M uses the GM204 chip with Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the FirePro W4190M uses the Opal chip with GCN 1.0. Transistor counts are 5,200 million versus 950 million, and die sizes are 398 mm² versus 77 mm². The Quadro M3000M has a higher transistor density at 13.1M / mm² compared to 12.3M / mm².

Clock speeds are close, with the Quadro M3000M at 823 MHz base and 924 MHz boost, versus the FirePro W4190M at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. Memory differs substantially: the Quadro M3000M has 4 GB GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth; the FirePro W4190M has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) and 64.00 GB/s.

Compute units scale accordingly: 1,024 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 32 ROPs for the Quadro M3000M; 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs for the FirePro W4190M. Pixel rate is 29.57 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s, texture rate is 59.14 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 1.892 TFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. The Quadro M3000M has a 75 W TDP, while the FirePro W4190M has no listed TDP.

Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 3.0 x16 for the Quadro M3000M versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the FirePro W4190M. DirectX support is 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1), and Vulkan versions are 1.4 versus 1.2.170. Both share OpenGL 4.6, MXM Module slot width, no power connectors, and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Release dates are August 2015 for the Quadro M3000M and November 2015 for the FirePro W4190M.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M3000M wins in every measurable category where data exists. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 16,646 is 269.5% higher than the FirePro W4190M’s 4,505, making it the clear choice for OpenCL-accelerated compute tasks such as rendering, simulation, or data processing. The Quadro M3000M’s 4 GB memory, 256-bit bus, and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth also make it suitable for large textures and high-resolution workloads, where the FirePro W4190M’s 2 GB and 64.00 GB/s would become a bottleneck.

The Quadro M3000M’s higher DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_1) and newer Vulkan support (1.4 versus 1.2.170) give it an edge in modern graphics APIs, allowing for more efficient draw calls and advanced effects. Its larger shader count (1,024 versus 384) and higher fill rates (29.57 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s) make it better suited for geometry-heavy scenes or multi-display setups.

The AMD FirePro W4190M’s strengths are more modest. Its 825 MHz base clock is 2 MHz higher than the Quadro M3000M’s 823 MHz, though this does not translate into meaningful performance gains. With a 77 mm² die and 950 million transistors, it consumes far less silicon area, which could indicate lower manufacturing complexity, though no TDP is listed to confirm power efficiency. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is narrower than the Quadro M3000M’s x16, but for basic 2D or light 3D tasks in portable devices, it may suffice.

For users prioritizing raw compute, memory bandwidth, or API compatibility, the Quadro M3000M is the definitive winner. The FirePro W4190M is better suited for entry-level professional workloads where minimal footprint and basic acceleration are acceptable, but benchmark results show it cannot compete with the Quadro M3000M on any performance axis. The data is unambiguous: the Quadro M3000M claims all 1 head-to-head win, while the FirePro W4190M records 0 wins.