GPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a surprisingly narrow contest between these two professional mobile GPUs. In the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505 against the NVIDIA Quadro P400's 4249. That is a 5.7% advantage for the AMD part, a meaningful but not overwhelming margin. The Quadro P400 does not win any head-to-head benchmark in the available dataset, though it has a second score in Geekbench Vulkan at 5119, a test the FirePro W4190M did not run.

What makes this interesting is how the average benchmark scores flatten the picture. The Quadro P400's average across both its OpenCL and Vulkan results is 4684, while the FirePro W4190M's average is simply its OpenCL score of 4505. That gives the NVIDIA card a higher aggregate number, yet the only direct comparison shows AMD ahead. The discrepancy comes from the Vulkan result, the Quadro P400 is 20.5% faster in Vulkan than it is in OpenCL, while the AMD card has no Vulkan data to offset its OpenCL showing.

The percentile rankings reinforce this near-tie. The Quadro P400 sits at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, the FirePro W4190M at the 26th. A single percentile point separates them, which aligns with the 5.7% delta in their one common test. The rival lists tell a similar story: the Quadro P400's closest competitor, the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB, is only 0.6% ahead, while the FirePro W4190M's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 M260, is 0.1% behind. Both cards are clustered in a dense pack of mid-low performers where tiny margins decide placement.

# Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4190M wins the only direct contest, the Geekbench OpenCL test. That result suggests AMD's architecture handles OpenCL workloads slightly better in this pairing, despite the Quadro P400 having a more modern process node and higher clock speeds. The 5.7% margin is consistent across the board, it is not a case of one workload type skewing the result, since there is only one data point.

The NVIDIA Quadro P400's case rests entirely on its Vulkan score. At 5119, that result is far ahead of its own OpenCL number and would likely beat the FirePro W4190M if AMD had submitted a Vulkan result. The gap is substantial: 5119 versus 4505 would be a 13.6% NVIDIA win. For users running Vulkan-based applications, the Quadro P400 is clearly the stronger choice based on this data. The card also holds a 0.9% average score advantage over the AMD Radeon R8 M445DX, whereas the FirePro W4190M trails its nearest rivals by 1.2% to 1.6%, indicating NVIDIA's part sits slightly higher in its competitive tier.

Use-case splitting becomes a question of API preference. OpenCL-heavy workflows favor AMD by 5.7%. Vulkan-based tasks have no direct comparison, but the Quadro P400's 5119 score is the single highest benchmark number in this entire dataset, surpassing every rival listed for either card. That is the clearest win condition for NVIDIA.

# Architecture Differences

The underlying designs could hardly be more different. NVIDIA's Quadro P400 uses the GP107 chip on a 14 nm Samsung process, packing 3,300 million transistors into a 132 mm² die. AMD's FirePro W4190M uses the Opal chip on a 28 nm TSMC process, with just 950 million transistors across a 77 mm² die. The transistor density gap is stark: 25.0 million per mm² for NVIDIA versus 12.3 million per mm² for AMD. That is a 2x density advantage for the newer process, yet it does not translate into a benchmark win on the OpenCL front.

Core configurations tell a different story. The FirePro W4190M has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operations pipelines. The Quadro P400 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. AMD runs 50% more shaders and 50% more TMUs, but half the ROPs. The compute numbers reflect this: AMD's FP32 output is 691.2 GFLOPS versus NVIDIA's 641.0 GFLOPS, a 7.8% advantage. Yet NVIDIA's pixel rate of 20.03 GPixel/s is nearly 3x AMD's 7.200 GPixel/s, and NVIDIA's texture rate of 20.03 GTexel/s is only 7% behind AMD's 21.60 GTexel/s. The ROP deficit hurts AMD badly in rasterization-heavy tasks.

Memory architecture also diverges sharply. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5, but AMD runs a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while NVIDIA uses a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth. AMD has exactly double the memory bandwidth. Clock speeds favor NVIDIA: 1228 MHz base and 1252 MHz boost versus AMD's 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost, a 49% base clock advantage and 39% boost clock advantage. The memory clock is nearly identical at 1002 MHz versus 1000 MHz, both effective 4 Gbps.

Process node and transistor count differences explain the power profile. NVIDIA lists a 30 W TDP with a 200 W suggested PSU, while AMD's TDP is not specified in the data. The Quadro P400 is a single-slot card at 150 mm length and 69 mm height, while the FirePro W4190M is an MXM Module, meaning its dimensions are not fixed. NVIDIA supports PCIe 3.0 x16, AMD only PCIe 3.0 x8, halving the interface bandwidth. Display outputs also differ: NVIDIA offers 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while AMD's outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its mobile-oriented MXM design.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 averages 4684 across its two benchmark results, while the AMD FirePro W4190M averages 4505 from its single OpenCL score. That is a 4.0% advantage for NVIDIA in aggregate terms.

Q: Why does the AMD card win the head-to-head benchmark if NVIDIA has the higher average?

A: The only direct comparison is Geekbench OpenCL, where AMD scores 4505 versus NVIDIA's 4249, a 5.7% margin. NVIDIA's higher average comes from its additional Geekbench Vulkan score of 5119, which is not part of the head-to-head dataset because AMD has no Vulkan result.

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

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M provides 64.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus, exactly double the Quadro P400's 32.06 GB/s over a 64-bit bus. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 memory at approximately the same effective 4 Gbps speed.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: AMD packs 384 shading units into the FirePro W4190M, while NVIDIA's Quadro P400 has 256. That is a 50% higher shader count for AMD, which contributes to its 691.2 GFLOPS FP32 output versus NVIDIA's 641.0 GFLOPS.

Q: Which card supports the newer PCIe interface?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the AMD FirePro W4190M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are PCIe 3.0 generation, but NVIDIA's x16 lane count provides double the interface bandwidth.

Q: What are the DirectX version differences?

A: NVIDIA's Quadro P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while AMD's FirePro W4190M supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The 12_1 feature level is a higher tier within DirectX 12. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but NVIDIA's Vulkan support is version 1.4 versus AMD's 1.2.170.

# The Verdict

The data paints a picture of two aging professional GPUs that are remarkably close in overall capability, with the choice hinging on workload specifics. For OpenCL-based compute tasks, the AMD FirePro W4190M is the winner by 5.7%, backed by its 50% higher shader count and double memory bandwidth. The 691.2 GFLOPS FP32 throughput gives it a real compute edge that the benchmark confirms.

For Vulkan workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro P400 is the clear pick. Its 5119 Vulkan score is 13.6% higher than AMD's best OpenCL result, and while that is not a direct comparison, it is the only Vulkan data point available. The Quadro P400 also wins on rasterization fundamentals: 20.03 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s, and double the ROP count. Its 30 W TDP with a 200 W suggested PSU indicates lower power draw, though AMD's TDP is unlisted.

The process node advantage is decisive in theory: 14 nm versus 28 nm, 3,300 million transistors versus 950 million, 25.0M/mm² versus 12.3M/mm² density. Yet the benchmark shows these architectural leaps do not always translate to wins. AMD's older but wider design compensates with more shaders and bandwidth. The Quadro P400's single-slot desktop form factor versus AMD's MXM mobile module also suggests different target platforms.

Users needing OpenCL acceleration should choose the FirePro W4190M. Users working with Vulkan or prioritizing rasterization throughput should choose the Quadro P400. The 27th versus 26th percentile ranking confirms there is no clear overall champion, it is a 1% difference in global standing, and the specific API support decides the practical winner.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro P400 | AMD FirePro W4190M |

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

| Chip | GP107 | Opal |

| Architecture | Pascal | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Quadro Pascal (Px000) | FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 28 nm |

| Foundry | Samsung | TSMC |

| Transistors | 3,300 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 132 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 25.0M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 1228 MHz | 825 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 1252 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.06 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 256 | 384 |

| TMUs | 16 | 24 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 20.03 GPixel/s | 7.200 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.03 GTexel/s | 21.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 641.0 GFLOPS | 691.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 30 W | Not specified |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Display Outputs | 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | 150 mm x 69 mm | Not specified |

| Successor | Quadro Volta | Radeon Pro Mobile |