AMD FirePro W4300 vs NVIDIA Quadro P4000 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct benchmark comparison between the AMD FirePro W4300 and the NVIDIA Quadro P4000, and it is decisive. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro P4000 scores 36,212 against the FirePro W4300's 11,225. That is a 69% advantage for the NVIDIA card, a margin so large that it effectively separates the two into entirely different performance classes.

Looking at the raw specifications, the scale of this gap makes sense. The Quadro P4000 ships with 1,792 shading units, 112 texture mapping units, and 64 ROPs, while the FirePro W4300 is equipped with 768 shading units, 48 TMUs, and only 16 ROPs. The compute throughput figures tell the same story: the P4000 delivers 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 1,428.5 GFLOPS for the W4300. Pixel fill rate is 94.72 GPixel/s on the NVIDIA side against 14.88 GPixel/s for the AMD card, and texture rate stands at 165.8 GTexel/s versus 44.64 GTexel/s.

The memory subsystem also heavily favors the Quadro P4000. It carries 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W4300 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, producing 96.00 GB/s. That is a 2.5x bandwidth advantage for the P4000, which matters greatly in OpenCL workloads that often scale with memory throughput.

When placed against their nearest rivals, neither card is an outlier in its own performance tier. The FirePro W4300 sits at the 50th percentile among all GPUs in the database, with its average benchmark score of 11,225 landing within 0.3% of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11,228) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261). It is actually 1.2% ahead of both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and the RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, each scoring 11,088. The Quadro P4000, despite its overwhelming victory here, occupies the 47th percentile overall, with an average score of 9,665. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 at 9,653 (0.1% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M at 9,645 (0.2% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 at 9,637 (0.3% behind). The only rival ahead of it is the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 at 9,716, which leads by 0.5%.

This apparent contradiction, a GPU that crushes its direct competitor yet ranks lower in the overall percentile, is explained by the benchmark mix. The P4000 has ten recorded benchmark scores across a wide range of tests, including DirectX 9, 10, 11, and 12, 2D graphics, 3D graphics, and compute workloads. Its OpenCL score is exceptionally high at 36,212, and its Vulkan score is even higher at 41,786, but its Passmark scores are modest: 66 in DirectX 10, 86 in DirectX 11, 40 in DirectX 12, 181 in DirectX 9, 786 in G2D, 11,466 in G3D, and 4,913 in GPU compute. The FirePro W4300, by contrast, has only one recorded benchmark, the OpenCL test, and its average is therefore identical to that single score. The averaging process pulls the P4000 down because its DirectX and 2D results are far below its compute peaks.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: for any workload that resembles the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA Quadro P4000 is the superior choice. The 69% lead in that specific benchmark is not marginal, it is a dominant performance gap. The P4000 also offers double the VRAM, over 2.5x the memory bandwidth, and more than 3.7x the FP32 compute throughput. For applications that stress compute shaders, rendering, or large data sets, the P4000 will complete tasks in a fraction of the time.

However, the story is not entirely one-sided. The FirePro W4300 draws only 50 W of power compared to 105 W for the Quadro P4000, and it requires no external power connector, while the P4000 needs a single 6-pin. The AMD card is also shorter at 171 mm (6.7 inches) versus 241 mm (9.5 inches) for the NVIDIA card, and it is less tall at 69 mm (2.7 inches) versus 111 mm (4.4 inches). For compact workstations or systems with limited power delivery, the FirePro W4300 is the more accommodating physical package.

The suggested PSU rating is 250 W for the FirePro and 300 W for the Quadro, so the power supply requirement is not dramatically different, but the thermal and spatial footprint is. The Quadro P4000 also carries a launch MSRP of 815 USD, a figure that the database records but does not contextualize against the FirePro, which has no recorded launch MSRP.

For buyers who prioritize raw compute and memory capacity, the Quadro P4000 is the obvious pick. For those who need a low-profile, low-power card for basic GPU acceleration in a constrained chassis, the FirePro W4300 remains viable, but only for lighter workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The AMD FirePro W4300 is built on GCN 2.0, using the Bonaire chip, and it belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx300) generation. The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 uses the Pascal architecture with the GP104 chip, part of the Quadro Pascal (Px000) generation. This architectural gap spans roughly a year and a half of development time, with the FirePro releasing on 2015-11-30 and the Quadro on 2017-02-05.

Manufacturing process technology is another major separator. The FirePro W4300 is fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, while the Quadro P4000 uses a 16 nm process, also at TSMC. The smaller node allows the NVIDIA chip to pack far more transistors: 7,200 million versus 2,080 million, on a larger die of 314 mm² compared to 160 mm². Transistor density is correspondingly higher on the 16 nm part at 22.9M per mm² versus 13.0M per mm² for the 28 nm part.

The memory architectures differ as well. Both use GDDR5, but the Quadro P4000 runs its memory at 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective) on a 256-bit bus, while the FirePro W4300 runs at 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus. The resulting bandwidth gap, 243.3 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s, is one of the largest spec-level differences between the two.

API support shows a similar generational shift. Both cards support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the Quadro P4000 reaches DirectX 12_1 while the FirePro W4300 is limited to 12_0. Vulkan support also differs: the Quadro supports Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro supports 1.2.170. Display outputs are another point of divergence: the FirePro offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro offers 4x DisplayPort 1.4a, meaning the NVIDIA card supports newer display standards.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two cards:

• Chip: Bonaire (AMD) versus GP104 (NVIDIA)
• Architecture: GCN 2.0 versus Pascal
• Generation: FirePro GCN (Wx300) versus Quadro Pascal (Px000)
• Process node: 28 nm versus 16 nm
• Transistors: 2,080 million versus 7,200 million
• Die size: 160 mm² versus 314 mm²
• Transistor density: 13.0M / mm² versus 22.9M / mm²
• Base clock: not recorded versus 1202 MHz
• Boost clock: not recorded versus 1480 MHz
• Memory clock: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1901 MHz (7.6 Gbps effective)
• Memory size: 4 GB versus 8 GB
• Memory bus width: 128 bit versus 256 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 96.00 GB/s versus 243.3 GB/s
• Shading units: 768 versus 1792
• TMUs: 48 versus 112
• ROPs: 16 versus 64
• Pixel rate: 14.88 GPixel/s versus 94.72 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 44.64 GTexel/s versus 165.8 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 1,428.5 GFLOPS versus 5.304 TFLOPS
• FP16 performance: not recorded versus 82.88 GFLOPS (1:64)
• TDP: 50 W versus 105 W
• Power connectors: None versus 1x 6-pin
• Suggested PSU: 250 W versus 300 W
• Display outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 versus 4x DisplayPort 1.4a
• DirectX support: 12 (12_0) versus 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan support: 1.2.170 versus 1.4
• Dimensions: 171 mm x 69 mm versus 241 mm x 111 mm
• Release date: 2015-11-30 versus 2017-02-05
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale versus Quadro Maxwell
• Successor: Radeon Pro GCN versus Quadro Volta

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro P4000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 36,212 against the AMD FirePro W4300's 11,225, a margin of 69%.

Q: How does the FirePro W4300 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average benchmark score of 11,225 is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200 (11,228) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 780M (11,261), and it is 1.2% ahead of both the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q and the RTX PRO 6000D Blackwell Max-Q, which each score 11,088.

Q: How does the Quadro P4000 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: Its average score of 9,665 puts it 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 2100 (9,653), 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M (9,645), and 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K5000 (9,637), while the NVIDIA Tesla C2070 leads it by 0.5% with a score of 9,716.

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

A: The Quadro P4000 has 243.3 GB/s of bandwidth on a 256-bit bus with 8 GB of GDDR5, while the FirePro W4300 has 96.00 GB/s on a 128-bit bus with 4 GB of GDDR5.

Q: Which card has higher compute throughput?

A: The Quadro P4000 delivers 5.304 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is roughly 3.7x the 1,428.5 GFLOPS of the FirePro W4300.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The FirePro W4300 has a 50 W TDP and requires no external power connector, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro P4000 has a 105 W TDP, needs one 6-pin power connector, and suggests a 300 W PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro P4000 wins decisively in the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test. It also wins on every major compute and memory specification: FP32 throughput, texture rate, pixel rate, memory capacity, and memory bandwidth. For tasks like GPU-accelerated rendering, simulation, large dataset processing, or any OpenCL compute workload, the P4000 is the stronger card by a wide margin. Its higher DirectX 12_1 support and Vulkan 1.4 also make it more future-proof for newer graphics APIs.

The FirePro W4300 wins on physical and power characteristics. It consumes less than half the power (50 W versus 105 W), needs no external power connector, and has a smaller footprint (171 mm x 69 mm versus 241 mm x 111 mm). These traits make it suitable for compact or legacy workstations where space is tight and power delivery is limited. Its 250 W suggested PSU is also easier to accommodate in pre-existing systems.

In terms of display connectivity, the FirePro uses 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the Quadro uses 4x DisplayPort 1.4a. The newer DisplayPort standard on the NVIDIA card supports higher resolutions and refresh rates, but the AMD card's mini-DisplayPort form factor may be preferable in dense multi-GPU setups where standard-sized ports create physical interference.

The production status for both cards is end-of-life, so neither is a current-generation purchase. But for systems already in the field, the data suggests that the Quadro P4000 is the one to keep for demanding compute work, while the FirePro W4300 remains a viable low-power companion for basic acceleration needs. The benchmark record is one-sided, and the specification sheet reinforces that imbalance.