AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4300 and NVIDIA Quadro M2000M are both end-of-life professional workstation GPUs from late 2015, built on the same 28 nm TSMC process. The data shows a decisive overall winner, but the story is more nuanced when examining their respective architectural designs and benchmark results. The FirePro W4300 claims the only head-to-head benchmark victory, while the Quadro M2000M counters with a broader API feature set in some areas.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD FirePro W4300 is the clear performance leader. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL) with a score of 11,225 against the Quadro M2000M’s 10,057, a significant 11.6% advantage. The FirePro also holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs, sitting at the 50th percentile compared to the Quadro’s 47th. Its average benchmark score of 11,225 is notably higher than the Quadro’s 9,832.

The Quadro M2000M, however, is not without merit. It is the only one of the two with a Vulkan benchmark score, recording 9,606 points, and it offers a higher pixel fill rate (18.19 GPixel/s vs. 14.88 GPixel/s) and texture fill rate (45.48 GTexel/s vs. 44.64 GTexel/s). This suggests that for specific, fill-rate-bound workloads, the NVIDIA card could be competitive, despite its overall lower compute scores.

Who should pick which from the data? Users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads should choose the AMD FirePro W4300. Its 11.6% lead in the head-to-head test is substantial and its higher percentile ranking reinforces its overall performance advantage. Users whose applications leverage Vulkan, or who require the higher pixel throughput of the Quadro, might find the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M more suitable, though its lower average score and compute performance suggest it is the weaker all-rounder. The data implies that for general professional compute tasks, AMD is the safer bet, while NVIDIA holds specific niche advantages.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different architectural philosophies from their respective manufacturers. The AMD FirePro W4300 is built on GCN 2.0 architecture with the Bonaire chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on the same 28 nm process node, but their internal designs diverge significantly.

The AMD chip is physically larger and more complex. It contains 2,080 million transistors on a 160 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 13.0M / mm². In contrast, the NVIDIA chip has 1,870 million transistors on a smaller 148 mm² die, with a density of 12.6M / mm². This gives AMD a slight density advantage, suggesting a more efficient packing of transistors.

The compute resources differ markedly. The FirePro W4300 is equipped with 768 shading units, 48 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The Quadro M2000M, meanwhile, has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. AMD’s higher shader and TMU counts directly contribute to its higher theoretical compute throughput, with the FirePro achieving 1,428.5 GFLOPS FP32 performance versus the Quadro’s 1,455.4 GFLOPS. Interestingly, despite having fewer cores, the NVIDIA card actually posts a higher FP32 figure due to its higher clock speeds — the Quadro has a base clock of 1098 MHz and boost of 1137 MHz, while the FirePro’s clocks are not listed in the data.

The memory subsystems are similar in capacity but differ in speed. Both have 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, but the FirePro’s memory runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) yielding 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the Quadro’s runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) for 80.19 GB/s. AMD’s memory bandwidth advantage of nearly 20% is significant for bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it tells a compelling story. The AMD FirePro W4300 scores 11,225 points, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M scores 10,057 points. This represents an 11.6% victory for AMD. This is a substantial margin across GPU benchmarks, indicating that the FirePro delivers noticeably better compute performance in OpenCL applications.

This result aligns with the architectural data. AMD’s higher shading unit count (768 vs. 640) and superior memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s vs. 80.19 GB/s) provide a solid foundation for compute-heavy tasks. The 11.6% delta is likely a reflection of these combined advantages.

However, it is crucial to note that the Quadro’s higher clock speeds (1098 MHz base / 1137 MHz boost) and higher pixel/texture rates (18.19 GPixel/s and 45.48 GTexel/s, respectively) suggest it could win in scenarios that are not purely shader-bound. The single benchmark result does not capture potential wins in rasterization-heavy tasks or Vulkan-based applications. The data is limited, but the one test we have clearly favors AMD.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 has a significantly higher average benchmark score of 11,225 points, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M’s 9,832 points.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 wins with a score of 11,225 against the Quadro M2000M’s 10,057, a margin of 11.6%.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M have any benchmark advantage?

A: Yes, the Quadro M2000M is the only one with a Geekbench Vulkan score, achieving 9,606 points. The FirePro W4300 has no Vulkan benchmark listed.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 offers 96.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is considerably higher than the Quadro M2000M’s 80.19 GB/s.

Q: What are the GPU percentile rankings for these cards?

A: The AMD FirePro W4300 ranks at the 50th percentile among all GPUs, while the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M ranks at the 47th percentile.

Q: Which GPU has a higher FP32 compute rating?

A: Despite having fewer cores, the NVIDIA Quadro M2000M has a slightly higher FP32 rating of 1,455.4 GFLOPS compared to the AMD FirePro W4300’s 1,428.5 GFLOPS.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture for general compute, but a closer look at the specifications reveals distinct use-case scenarios where each card has an edge.

AMD FirePro W4300 Wins: The FirePro is the definitive winner in OpenCL compute workloads, as demonstrated by its 11.6% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test. Its higher memory bandwidth (96.00 GB/s) makes it better suited for tasks that involve large data sets and memory-intensive calculations. The higher shading unit count (768) and TMU count (48) further support its compute prowess, making it the stronger choice for GPU-accelerated rendering, scientific simulation, and data processing. Its higher overall percentile ranking (50th vs. 47th) reinforces this — for raw processing power, the data consistently points to AMD.

NVIDIA Quadro M2000M Wins: The Quadro’s advantages are more specialized. Its Vulkan benchmark score of 9,606 points is the only data point available for that API, making it the clear choice for any workload that leverages Vulkan. Its higher pixel rate (18.19 GPixel/s) and texture rate (45.48 GTexel/s) suggest it could be better at fill-rate-limited tasks like certain types of 2D rendering or pixel-heavy visual effects. The higher boost clock (1137 MHz) and FP32 rating (1,455.4 GFLOPS) indicate that in short, clock-sensitive bursts, it might outpace the FirePro, even if sustained throughput favors AMD.

In short, the FirePro W4300 is the choice for heavy compute and OpenCL-centric applications, while the Quadro M2000M is preferable for Vulkan-based workloads and fill-rate-dependent tasks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4300 | NVIDIA Quadro M2000M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 2.0 | Maxwell |

| Chip | Bonaire | GM107 |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 2,080 million | 1,870 million |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 148 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 13.0M / mm² | 12.6M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 1098 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 1137 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 96.00 GB/s | 80.19 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 768 | 640 |

| TMUs | 48 | 40 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 14.88 GPixel/s | 18.19 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 44.64 GTexel/s | 45.48 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 1,428.5 GFLOPS | 1,455.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 55 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX Support | 12 (12_0) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2015-11-30 | 2015-12-02 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Quadro Kepler-M |

| Successor | Radeon Pro GCN | Quadro Pascal-M |

| Avg. Benchmark Score | 11,225 | 9,832 |

| Percentile vs. All GPUs | 50th | 47th |