AMD FirePro W5170M vs NVIDIA Quadro K4100M Comparison

The AMD FirePro W5170M and NVIDIA Quadro K4100M are both end-of-life mobile workstation graphics solutions from the 2013-2014 era, built on 28 nm TSMC processes. The data shows a clear, albeit narrow, victory for the NVIDIA part in the only shared benchmark, but the specifications and architectural approaches reveal two very different design philosophies. The Quadro K4100M leverages a massive chip with high compute throughput, while the FirePro W5170M relies on a smaller, more efficient die with higher clock speeds. This analysis will dissect the benchmark results, specification differences, and architectural choices to determine which GPU holds the advantage for specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it tells a straightforward story. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 9149, while the AMD FirePro W5170M trails at 8140. This represents an 11% delta in favor of the NVIDIA part, a substantial margin in the context of professional graphics. The winning score suggests that the K4100M's raw compute resources, including its 1152 shading units and 96 texture mapping units, are more effective in this particular compute workload than the FirePro's higher clocked but fewer units.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the FirePro W5170M’s average benchmark score of 8595 places it in the 44th percentile of all GPUs. Its OpenCL score of 8140 is actually lower than its average, indicating that the Vulkan score of 9050 is its stronger showing. In contrast, the Quadro K4100M’s average benchmark score is 7906, which sits in the 41st percentile. Interestingly, its OpenCL score of 9149 is significantly higher than its average, suggesting that this specific test is a relative strength for the NVIDIA card. The K4100M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 6662, a test the AMD card does not have.

The delta between the two rivals is consistent when compared to their nearest competitors. The FirePro W5170M is nearly tied with the Intel Arc A380, with a delta of only 0.4%, and is 1.6% ahead of both the AMD Radeon HD 8870M and the NVIDIA GeForce MX330. The Quadro K4100M, on the other hand, sits in a tight pack, being 0.2% behind the GeForce GTX 460 and 1.7% behind the Quadro P5000. This data implies that while the K4100M wins the head-to-head, both cards are positioned in a similar performance tier, with the AMD card being slightly more competitive against its own peer group.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the clear winner in the OpenCL compute test, which is often used to gauge general-purpose GPU performance. This makes it the preferable choice for tasks that leverage OpenCL for acceleration, such as certain rendering engines, physics simulations, or data processing. The K4100M’s significant advantage in texture rate (67.78 GTexel/s vs. 37.00 GTexel/s) and pixel rate (16.94 GPixel/s vs. 14.80 GPixel/s) further suggests it would excel in fill-rate-limited scenarios, such as high-resolution texture mapping or complex fragment shader operations.

The AMD FirePro W5170M, despite losing the OpenCL test, shows competitive strengths elsewhere. Its Vulkan score of 9050 is notably high and suggests it may have an edge in Vulkan-based applications or games, even though this is not a professional workload. Furthermore, the FirePro has a higher base and boost clock speed (900 MHz and 925 MHz, respectively) compared to the K4100M’s fixed 706 MHz. This higher clock speed contributes to its respectable FP32 performance of 1,184.0 GFLOPS, which, while lower than the K4100M’s 1.627 TFLOPS, is achieved with significantly fewer shading units. The FirePro’s performance per clock appears higher, making it potentially more efficient in tasks that are latency-bound or that do not scale perfectly with core count.

In terms of software API support, the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the K4100M lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The higher DirectX feature level on the AMD card (11_1 vs 11_0) could be a minor advantage for compatibility with certain modern applications. However, the K4100M has a newer Vulkan version. Ultimately, the K4100M wins on raw compute and fillrate, while the W5170M demonstrates its strengths in clock speed and specific API performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5170M has a higher average benchmark score of 8595, compared to the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M’s average of 7906. This is despite the K4100M winning the direct OpenCL comparison.

Q: What is the performance difference in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M scores 9149 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 11% higher than the AMD FirePro W5170M’s score of 8140.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M features 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, providing a bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The AMD FirePro W5170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with a bandwidth of 72.00 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has a significantly higher transistor count of 3,540 million, compared to the AMD FirePro W5170M’s 1,500 million transistors.

Q: What are the typical power characteristics of these cards?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M has a listed TDP of 100 W. The AMD FirePro W5170M does not have a TDP figure listed in the data, but it is a smaller chip with lower specs.

Q: Are these cards still in production?

A: No, both the AMD FirePro W5170M and the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M have a production status of "End-of-life."

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference lies in memory configuration. The NVIDIA Quadro K4100M offers double the capacity (4 GB vs. 2 GB) and double the bus width (256-bit vs. 128-bit), resulting in a substantial bandwidth advantage of 102.4 GB/s versus 72.00 GB/s for the AMD FirePro W5170M. This makes the K4100M better suited for large datasets and high-resolution textures that exceed the FirePro's capacity.

The compute resources also diverge sharply. The K4100M has 1152 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 32 ROPs, dwarfing the FirePro's 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. However, the clock speeds are reversed. The FirePro runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost, while the K4100M is locked at a lower 706 MHz. This leads to a theoretical FP32 performance of 1.627 TFLOPS for NVIDIA and 1,184.0 GFLOPS for AMD, a 27% advantage for the K4100M.

The interface and power specs also differ. The FirePro W5170M uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the K4100M uses the larger MXM-B (3.0) form factor. The NVIDIA card is the only one with a specified TDP of 100 W. Finally, the release dates are different, with the K4100M launching on July 22, 2013, and the W5170M on August 24, 2014. The launch MSRP for the K4100M was 1,499 USD, while no MSRP is listed for the FirePro.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD FirePro W5170M is based on GCN 1.0, a design from 2011 that prioritized compute performance and scalability. It uses the "Tropo" chip and is part of the "FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)" generation. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M uses the Kepler architecture, a design from 2012 that focused on power efficiency and gaming performance, featuring the "GK104" chip and belonging to the "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx100M)" generation.

The physical die sizes reflect the architectural differences. The K4100M has a massive die size of 294 mm² with 3,540 million transistors, while the W5170M has a much smaller die of 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors. The transistor density is nearly identical (12.2M / mm² for AMD vs. 12.0M / mm² for NVIDIA), showing that both were on the same manufacturing process. The larger die and higher transistor count of the Kepler chip allow for more functional units, but also likely contribute to its higher 100 W TDP.

The API support also reveals architectural differences. The FirePro's GCN architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the Kepler architecture supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the K4100M has a newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 vs. 1.2.170). The predecessor and successor lines also differ: the FirePro succeeded "FirePro Mobility" and was replaced by "Radeon Pro Mobile," while the Quadro succeeded "Quadro Fermi-M" and was replaced by "Quadro Maxwell-M."

The Verdict

The data clearly indicates that the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the more powerful GPU for raw compute and memory-intensive tasks. Its 11% lead in the OpenCL benchmark, combined with its doubled memory capacity and bandwidth, makes it the superior choice for professional applications like 3D rendering, video editing, and scientific simulations that can utilize these resources. The 4 GB frame buffer is particularly important for modern workloads that often exceed 2 GB of VRAM.

However, the AMD FirePro W5170M should not be dismissed. Its higher average benchmark score (8595 vs. 7906) suggests it performs more consistently across a wider range of tests, and its strong Vulkan score of 9050 is a point in its favor. Its lower power requirements, implied by its smaller die and no listed TDP, could make it a better fit for thinner, cooler laptops. The FirePro is also a later release by over a year.

For a user who needs maximum compute throughput and large memory for heavy professional workloads, the NVIDIA Quadro K4100M is the obvious pick. For a user who prioritizes a balance of performance, efficiency, and a more modern API feature set, the AMD FirePro W5170M presents a compelling alternative, especially if the workload is more Vulkan-centric. The K4100M wins the head-to-head, but the W5170M wins the efficiency and consistency argument.