AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W600 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 are two end-of-life professional workstation graphics cards from the early 2010s, built on the same 28 nm TSMC process node but with fundamentally different architectural philosophies. The data available shows a clear but narrow victory for the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 in the only direct head-to-head benchmark, yet the specifications reveal two very different tools designed for different professional workloads. This analysis draws exclusively from the provided fact pack to dissect where each card excels, what the architectural differences mean, and who should consider which card today.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a straightforward picture: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins the only shared test, but the AMD FirePro W600 has distinct strengths that are not captured by that single metric. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Quadro K4000 scores 6816 against the FirePro W600’s 6223, a margin of 8.7 percent. This makes the Quadro the clear winner in raw compute throughput as measured by that workload, and it aligns with the card’s substantially higher FP32 rating of 1,244.2 GFLOPS compared to the FirePro’s 768.0 GFLOPS.

However, the FirePro W600 wins decisively in the field of display output flexibility. It features 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Quadro K4000 offers only 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2. For a professional setting that requires driving multiple monitors—such as a financial trading floor, a video wall, or a multi-display medical imaging setup—the FirePro W600 is the only real choice between these two. The Quadro K4000 cannot match that output count, making the AMD card the winner for any multi-monitor configuration that exceeds three displays. The FirePro also requires no power connectors, drawing its 75 W entirely from the PCIe slot, whereas the Quadro needs a single 6-pin connector for its 80 W TDP, giving the AMD card a slight edge in installation simplicity.

The Quadro K4000 further establishes its compute lead with additional benchmark results: it scores 4166 in Geekbench Metal and 6964 in Geekbench Vulkan. These tests were not run on the FirePro W600, but their presence indicates the NVIDIA card has broader API support for modern compute frameworks, including a higher Vulkan version (1.2.175 vs. 1.2.170). In terms of pure processing capability, the Quadro also holds advantages in texture and pixel rates: 51.84 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s, and 12.96 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s, respectively.

Architecture Differences

The two cards are built on the same 28 nm TSMC process node, but their internal designs diverge sharply. The AMD FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 uses the GK106 chip based on Kepler architecture. The transistor counts reveal a significant difference in complexity: the Quadro’s GK106 packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the FirePro’s Cape Verde has just 1,500 million transistors on a smaller 123 mm² die. This translates to a transistor density of 11.5M per mm² for NVIDIA and 12.2M per mm² for AMD, showing AMD achieved a slightly higher packing density despite the smaller overall chip.

The compute resources are heavily skewed toward the NVIDIA card. The Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 24 raster operations pipelines. The FirePro W600 counters with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means the Quadro has 50 percent more shading units, double the TMUs, and 50 percent more ROPs, which directly explains its higher texture and pixel fill rates. The memory subsystems also differ substantially: the Quadro has 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, yielding 134.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the FirePro has 2 GB on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s—less than half the bandwidth. Memory clocks also favor NVIDIA: 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) versus AMD’s 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

The bus interface is another point of difference, with the FirePro W600 supporting PCIe 3.0 x16 while the Quadro K4000 is limited to PCIe 2.0 x16. The FirePro also supports DirectX 12 (11_1), whereas the Quadro only reaches DirectX 12 (11_0). Both cards support OpenGL 4.6, and the Quadro has a marginally higher Vulkan version. Physically, the FirePro is shorter at 168 mm (6.6 inches) versus the Quadro’s 241 mm (9.5 inches), and both are single-slot cards with identical 111 mm height.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it provides a clear result. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 6816, defeating the AMD FirePro W600’s 6223 by a margin of 8.7 percent. This is a notable but not overwhelming victory, suggesting that while NVIDIA has a performance lead, it is not a generational gap. For context, the FirePro W600’s score places it among rivals like the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6210, a 0.2 percent difference) and surprisingly close to the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 and RTX 5070 Ti SUPER, both scoring 6270 with a -0.7 percent delta relative to the FirePro. This indicates the W600’s OpenCL performance is on par with much newer consumer cards, an artifact of the benchmark’s compute focus.

The Quadro K4000’s nearest rivals in average benchmark score include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986, -0.1 percent), AMD FirePro W4100 (5987, -0.1 percent), and AMD Radeon HD 8750M (5970, 0.2 percent). The Quadro’s average benchmark score is 5982, which is actually lower than its OpenCL score of 6816, because the average includes its Metal score of 4166 and its Vulkan score of 6964. The FirePro W600 has an average benchmark score of 6223, identical to its OpenCL score, since that is its only recorded benchmark. The Quadro’s Vulkan score of 6964 is its strongest result, exceeding its OpenCL score, while its Metal score drags the average down significantly. The FirePro W600 holds a 36th percentile rank among all GPUs, while the Quadro K4000 sits at the 34th percentile, meaning the AMD card is slightly better positioned in the overall performance distribution despite losing the head-to-head.

The Verdict

From the data, the choice between these two cards hinges entirely on the intended use case rather than raw performance. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is the superior compute workhorse. It wins the Geekbench OpenCL test decisively, offers higher FP32 throughput, double the texture units, more shading units, and nearly double the memory bandwidth. Its additional Metal and Vulkan benchmark scores indicate broader compute API support. For any professional workload that relies on GPU compute—such as rendering, simulation, or data processing—the Quadro K4000 is the clear pick. Its higher launch MSRP of 1,269 USD reflects this positioning, though pricing should not be a consideration in this analysis beyond that single factual statement.

The AMD FirePro W600 is the specialist for multi-display environments. Its 6x mini-DisplayPort outputs are unmatched by the Quadro’s 3-output configuration. For a workstation that needs to drive six monitors from a single card, the FirePro W600 is the only viable option between these two. It also consumes slightly less power (75 W vs. 80 W), requires no auxiliary power connector, and is physically shorter, making it easier to install in compact systems. Its PCIe 3.0 interface and slightly higher transistor density are minor technical advantages. Professionals building a multi-monitor trading desk or a video wall should choose the FirePro W600, while those needing compute performance should choose the Quadro K4000.

FAQ

Q: Which card wins in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 wins with a score of 6816, beating the AMD FirePro W600’s 6223 by 8.7 percent.

Q: How many display outputs does each card have?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has 1x DVI and 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs.

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has 134.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the AMD FirePro W600 has 64.00 GB/s, making the Quadro’s bandwidth more than double.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has 768 shading units, while the AMD FirePro W600 has 512 shading units.

Q: Does the FirePro W600 support any benchmarks the Quadro K4000 does not?

A: No, the AMD FirePro W600 has only one recorded benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has three (Geekbench Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 has a 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has an 80 W TDP and requires one 6-pin power connector.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W600 | NVIDIA Quadro K4000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Chip | Cape Verde | GK106 |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 3 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 192 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 134.8 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 1404 MHz (5.6 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 512 | 768 |

| TMUs | 32 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.00 GPixel/s | 12.96 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.00 GTexel/s | 51.84 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 768.0 GFLOPS | 1,244.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 80 W |

| Power Connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 168 mm (6.6 inches) | 241 mm (9.5 inches) |

| Release Date | 2012-06-12 | 2013-02-28 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | 1,269 USD |