AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA Quadro 6000 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4300 and NVIDIA Quadro 6000 represent two distinct eras of professional workstation graphics, separated by nearly five years of architectural evolution. The benchmark data, drawn from a single Geekbench OpenCL test, provides a clear, if narrow, statistical picture. The AMD FirePro W4300 records a score of 11,225, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 trails with 9,846. This yields a delta of 14%, placing the AMD part firmly ahead in raw compute performance. In the head-to-head results, the FirePro W4300 claims the sole victory, winning the only recorded benchmark.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole comparative data point is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute throughput. Here, the AMD FirePro W4300 achieves a score of 11,225, significantly outpacing the NVIDIA Quadro 6000’s 9,846. This represents a 14% advantage for the AMD product. This is not a marginal lead; it is a substantial gap that indicates the FirePro W4300 can process OpenCL workloads with markedly greater efficiency. The data suggests that for tasks leveraging this API, the AMD card will complete computations in notably less time.

Contextualizing these scores against their respective peer groups reinforces the separation. The FirePro W4300’s score places it at the 50th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200, scores 11,228, showing a delta of 0% and essentially a statistical tie. Interestingly, the FirePro W4300 also edges out the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q, which scores 11,088, giving the older AMD card a 1.2% lead. This shows that despite its age, the FirePro W4300’s compute capability is not obsolete. On the other side, the Quadro 6000 sits at the 47th percentile. Its closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M with a score of 9,832 (0.1% difference), followed by the AMD FirePro W5000 at 9,803 (0.4% difference). The Quadro 6000 also surpasses the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1070, which scores 9,780, by 0.7%. While the Quadro 6000 is competitive within its own performance tier, that tier is fundamentally lower than the one occupied by the FirePro W4300.

The deltaPct values in the rival lists further illustrate the positioning. The FirePro W4300’s nearest rivals are all within a 1.2% range, showing it sits in a tight, well-populated performance cluster. The Quadro 6000’s rivals are similarly close, but that cluster is decisively less powerful. The 14% head-to-head delta is the definitive number, showing that the architectural and clock-speed differences translate into a clear, measurable performance hierarchy.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice is straightforward for compute-focused workloads. The AMD FirePro W4300 is the superior performer, offering a 14% advantage in OpenCL benchmarks. Users whose primary applications rely on this API will see tangible benefits in rendering, simulation, and other GPGPU tasks. The benchmark results indicate that the FirePro W4300 provides a higher performance ceiling within the measured test, making it the logical pick for users who prioritize raw compute throughput.

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000, however, is not without its own rationale. While it loses in compute, its larger memory pool of 6 GB (compared to the FirePro W4300’s 4 GB) and wider 384-bit memory bus could be decisive for specific workloads that are memory-capacity bound rather than compute-bound. For a user dealing with extremely large datasets that fit within 6 GB but not 4 GB, the Quadro 6000 might be the only viable option, regardless of its compute deficit. The data does not measure memory capacity, but the specification difference is a hard fact that cannot be ignored. However, strictly from the benchmark data, the AMD FirePro W4300 wins the performance crown.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures from different process nodes. The AMD FirePro W4300 utilizes the Bonaire chip based on the GCN 2.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This modern design packs 2,080 million transistors into a die size of 160 mm², yielding a transistor density of 13.0M per mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip based on the Fermi architecture, also from TSMC but on an older 40 nm process. This larger chip contains 3,100 million transistors spread across a massive 529 mm² die, resulting in a much lower transistor density of just 5.9M per mm². The GCN 2.0 architecture is significantly more efficient in terms of transistor usage.

The compute resources reflect their architectural philosophies. The FirePro W4300 features 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 ROPs. The Quadro 6000 has fewer shading units at 448, but more TMUs (56) and significantly more ROPs (48). This configuration suggests the Quadro 6000 was designed for pixel-heavy tasks, while the FirePro W4300 is oriented toward shader compute. The pixel rate of the Quadro 6000 (16.07 GPixel/s) is indeed higher than the FirePro W4300’s (14.88 GPixel/s), but the texture rate is reversed, with the FirePro W4300 achieving 44.64 GTexel/s versus the Quadro’s 32.14 GTexel/s. In raw FP32 compute, the FirePro W4300 leads with 1,428.5 GFLOPS, compared to 1,027.7 GFLOPS for the Quadro 6000.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The FirePro W4300 uses 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth at a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The Quadro 6000 uses 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 384-bit bus, delivering 143.4 GB/s of bandwidth at a slower 747 MHz clock (3 Gbps effective). The Quadro’s wider bus is the key to its higher bandwidth. API support shows a generation gap: the FirePro W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the Quadro 6000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the AMD card supports Vulkan 1.2.170, a feature entirely absent from the NVIDIA card.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has higher raw compute performance, achieving a Geekbench OpenCL score of 11,225 compared to the NVIDIA Quadro 6000’s 9,846, a 14% advantage.

Q: How does the memory bandwidth compare between the two?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has higher memory bandwidth at 143.4 GB/s, due to its 384-bit bus, while the AMD FirePro W4300 has 96.00 GB/s over a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the difference in process node and die size?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 is built on a 28 nm process with a 160 mm² die, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 uses a 40 nm process with a much larger 529 mm² die.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 support Vulkan?

A: No, the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has no Vulkan support listed. The AMD FirePro W4300 supports Vulkan version 1.2.170.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has 768 shading units, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has 448 shading units.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two cards?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has a TDP of 50 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 has a much higher TDP of 204 W.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins decisively in compute-centric workloads. Its 14% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with higher FP32 performance (1,428.5 GFLOPS vs. 1,027.7 GFLOPS) and a higher texture rate (44.64 GTexel/s vs. 32.14 GTexel/s), makes it the better choice for GPU-accelerated computing, scientific simulation, and any application that relies heavily on general-purpose shader execution. Its support for Vulkan also gives it a modern API advantage for compatibility with newer software stacks.

The NVIDIA Quadro 6000 holds advantages in specific, non-compute areas. Its larger 6 GB memory capacity and higher memory bandwidth (143.4 GB/s) are its primary strengths. For workloads that are strictly limited by memory size or require high-bandwidth data movement, such as handling massive textures or large frame buffers, the Quadro 6000’s 384-bit bus provides a significant edge. Its higher pixel rate (16.07 GPixel/s) also suggests it could be more efficient in pure rasterization and fill-rate-limited scenarios, despite its older architecture.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification field. The AMD FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip (GCN 2.0) on a 28 nm process, while the NVIDIA Quadro 6000 uses the GF100 chip (Fermi) on a 40 nm process. The FirePro W4300 has a smaller die (160 mm² vs. 529 mm²) but a higher transistor density (13.0M / mm² vs. 5.9M / mm²). Memory differs in size (4 GB vs. 6 GB), bus width (128-bit vs. 384-bit), and bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs. 143.4 GB/s). The FirePro W4300 has more shading units (768 vs. 448) and TMUs (48 vs. 56), but fewer ROPs (16 vs. 48). The FirePro W4300 has a higher FP32 rate (1,428.5 GFLOPS vs. 1,027.7 GFLOPS) and texture rate, but a lower pixel rate. TDP is drastically different: 50 W for AMD versus 204 W for NVIDIA. The AMD card is single-slot with no power connectors, while the NVIDIA card is dual-slot requiring 1x 6-pin and 1x 8-pin connectors. The FirePro W4300 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Quadro 6000 uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16. Display outputs also differ: the FirePro W4300 offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro 6000 offers 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, and 1x S-Video. API support differs, with the FirePro W4300 supporting DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan, while the Quadro 6000 only supports DirectX 11_0 and no Vulkan. The Quadro 6000 has a launch MSRP of 4,399 USD.