AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA Quadro K2200 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4300 and NVIDIA Quadro K2200 are both end-of-life professional workstation cards built on a 28 nm TSMC process, but they target different priorities. The data shows a narrow overall victory for the NVIDIA Quadro K2200, which wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, yet the AMD card counters with a superior feature set and a more modern platform interface. The Quadro K2200 edges ahead in raw OpenCL compute, while the FirePro W4300 offers a more future-proof API stack and newer connectivity.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 wins on raw compute performance. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the K2200 scores 11431 against the FirePro W4300’s 11225, a delta of -1.8% for the AMD part. This makes the K2200 the clear choice for workloads that are heavily dependent on OpenCL acceleration. The K2200 also posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10090, a metric the FirePro W4300 lacks entirely in the data, giving NVIDIA a definitive edge in Vulkan-based applications. Its average benchmark score of 10761 is lower than its OpenCL result due to the inclusion of that Vulkan test, but the head-to-head win is unambiguous.

The AMD FirePro W4300 wins on architectural modernity and interface bandwidth. While it loses the OpenCL race, it counters with a DirectX 12 (12_0) API level versus the K2200’s DirectX 12 (11_0), a meaningful difference for applications leveraging the latest DirectX features. The W4300 also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, an older version than the K2200’s Vulkan 1.4, but it pairs that with a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, doubling the bandwidth of the K2200’s PCIe 2.0 x16. For data transfer-heavy tasks or multi-GPU setups, the W4300’s bus advantage is significant. Additionally, the W4300 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs versus the K2200’s single DVI and dual DisplayPort 1.2, making it the better option for multi-display professional environments.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on fundamentally different architectures. The FirePro W4300 uses the Bonaire chip based on GCN 2.0, while the Quadro K2200 uses the GM107 chip based on Maxwell. GCN 2.0 is a mature, compute-heavy design, whereas Maxwell is optimized for power efficiency and geometry throughput. The process node is identical at 28 nm, and both are fabricated by TSMC, but the transistor counts and die sizes diverge: AMD packs 2,080 million transistors into a 160 mm² die, yielding a density of 13.0M / mm², while NVIDIA fits 1,870 million transistors into a smaller 148 mm² die, resulting in 12.6M / mm² density. The AMD chip is both larger and denser.

The shading resources differ notably. The FirePro W4300 carries 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro K2200 has fewer of everything: 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. However, the K2200 compensates with higher clocks. Its base clock of 1046 MHz and boost clock of 1124 MHz are specified in the data, while the FirePro W4300 has no listed base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). The K2200’s memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), which is lower, but its pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s and texture rate of 44.96 GTexel/s both exceed the W4300’s 14.88 GPixel/s and 44.64 GTexel/s, respectively. The FP32 compute is nearly identical, with the W4300 at 1,428.5 GFLOPS and the K2200 at 1,438.7 GFLOPS.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are tight. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 scores 11431, while the AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11225. This is a 1.8% advantage for NVIDIA. In practical terms, this means the K2200 is slightly faster in OpenCL compute workloads, but the margin is small enough that it could be within run-to-run variance. The W4300’s lower score is surprising given its higher shading unit count (768 vs. 640), but the K2200’s higher clock speeds and superior pixel and texture rates help it close the gap.

The K2200 also has the distinct advantage of a Geekbench Vulkan score of 10090. Since the FirePro W4300 has no corresponding Vulkan result in the data, the K2200 is the only one of the two that demonstrates Vulkan capability. This is a decisive win for NVIDIA in any Vulkan-based workload, as the absence of data for AMD does not imply a failure, but it does indicate a lack of validated performance. The K2200’s average benchmark score of 10761, which blends its OpenCL and Vulkan results, is lower than its OpenCL score alone, reflecting the more demanding nature of the Vulkan test. The W4300’s average score is 11225, matching its single OpenCL result.

Specification Differences

The two cards diverge on several key specifications, with the most impactful being the bus interface and display outputs. The FirePro W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, which offers double the bandwidth of the Quadro K2200’s PCIe 2.0 x16. This is a critical difference for professional workloads that stream large datasets to the GPU. The W4300 also provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, enabling a four-display setup out of the box, whereas the K2200 offers one DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, capping it at a lower display count without adapters.

Power and physical dimensions also favor the AMD card. The FirePro W4300 has a TDP of 50 W, which is lower than the K2200’s 68 W, making it more power-efficient. Both cards are single-slot, require no power connectors, and suggest a 250 W PSU, but the W4300 is notably shorter and lower-profile: it measures 171 mm (6.7 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, while the K2200 is 202 mm (8 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) tall. The K2200 is a larger card. Memory is identical in capacity (4 GB GDDR5) and bus width (128 bit), but the W4300 has higher bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s versus the K2200’s 80.19 GB/s. The API support also differs: the W4300 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the K2200 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. The K2200 has a higher Vulkan version, but the W4300 has a higher DirectX feature level.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is faster, scoring 11431 in the Geekbench OpenCL test against the AMD FirePro W4300’s 11225, a 1.8% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W4300 support Vulkan?

A: The data lists Vulkan 1.2.170 as part of its API support, but no Geekbench Vulkan benchmark score is provided. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has a Vulkan score of 10090.

Q: Which card has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has higher memory bandwidth at 96.00 GB/s, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 offers 80.19 GB/s. Both use 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: What is the difference in PCIe interface?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the NVIDIA Quadro K2200 uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The W4300’s interface provides double the bandwidth.

Q: How many display outputs does each card have?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has one DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 has a higher pixel rate of 17.98 GPixel/s, compared to the AMD FirePro W4300’s 14.88 GPixel/s.

The Verdict

The choice between these two cards depends strictly on workload priorities. The NVIDIA Quadro K2200 is the winner for pure compute performance. It beats the FirePro W4300 in OpenCL by 1.8%, and it is the only one of the two with a validated Vulkan score of 10090. Its higher pixel rate (17.98 GPixel/s) and texture rate (44.96 GTexel/s) also make it the stronger candidate for geometry-heavy tasks. For users running OpenCL or Vulkan applications, the K2200 is the data-backed pick.

The AMD FirePro W4300 is the better choice for platform-centric or multi-display deployments. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, higher memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s), and four mini-DisplayPort outputs give it a clear infrastructure advantage. The W4300 also has a lower TDP of 50 W versus 68 W, making it more power-efficient, and its smaller physical footprint (171 mm vs. 202 mm) is easier to fit into compact chassis. For users prioritizing connectivity, power draw, or newer bus technology, the W4300 is superior. However, the data shows that the K2200 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, and its average benchmark score of 10761 reflects a broader tested capability. The FirePro W4300’s single benchmark score of 11225 is higher than that average, but it lacks the Vulkan coverage. In the end, the Quadro K2200 is the safer bet for raw performance, while the FirePro W4300 is the forward-looking choice for system integration and display flexibility.