AMD FirePro W600 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

AMD FirePro W600 and NVIDIA Quadro M4000 are both end-of-life professional workstation cards, but they target different segments of the market. The FirePro W600 is built around AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with a 28 nm process, while the Quadro M4000 uses NVIDIA's Maxwell 2.0 architecture on the same 28 nm node. The data shows a stark contrast in compute capability, with the Quadro M4000 delivering over three times the OpenCL score of the FirePro W600. However, the FirePro W600 compensates with a unique six-display output configuration that the Quadro M4000 does not match. This analysis examines where each card wins, their architectural differences, and what the benchmark results imply for specific workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 19118 versus 6223 for the AMD FirePro W600. That is a 67.4% deficit for the AMD card, meaning the Quadro M4000 is roughly three times faster in this compute-oriented workload. The Quadro M4000 also has a broader benchmark footprint overall, with scores in DirectX 9, 10, 11, 12, G2D, G3D, and GPU compute tests, while the FirePro W600 only has the single OpenCL entry.

The FirePro W600 wins on display connectivity. It features 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, which is two more than the Quadro M4000's 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. For multi-monitor professional setups, particularly in financial trading floors or video wall applications, that extra pair of outputs is a decisive advantage. The FirePro W600 also has a lower power draw at 75 W versus 120 W for the Quadro M4000, and it does not require a power connector, whereas the Quadro M4000 needs a single 6-pin connector.

In terms of physical footprint, the FirePro W600 is shorter at 168 mm (6.6 inches) compared to the Quadro M4000 at 241 mm (9.5 inches), making it easier to fit into compact chassis. Both cards are single-slot designs, but the FirePro W600's width is listed at 20 mm (0.8 inches) while the Quadro M4000's width is not recorded.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro W600 uses the Cape Verde chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, also from TSMC at 28 nm, but with 5,200 million transistors on a much larger 398 mm² die, achieving 13.1M per mm².

The compute resources differ substantially. The FirePro W600 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operations pipelines (ROPs). The Quadro M4000 has 1664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, which is over three times the shading units, more than three times the TMUs, and four times the ROPs. This explains the large performance gap in raw compute and pixel processing.

Memory configurations are also divergent. The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, providing 192.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is three times the bandwidth and four times the capacity. The memory clock differs as well: the FirePro W600 runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) while the Quadro M4000 runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective).

The API support shows generational differences. The FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The FirePro W600's GCN 1.0 architecture predates the Maxwell 2.0 design, and the release dates confirm this: the FirePro W600 launched on 2012-06-12, while the Quadro M4000 launched on 2015-06-28, a gap of roughly three years.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains exactly one head-to-head benchmark between these two cards: Geekbench OpenCL. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 19118, while the AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223. The delta is -67.4% for the FirePro W600, meaning the Quadro M4000 is approximately 207% faster in this test. That is a decisive margin, not a marginal difference.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database provides context. The FirePro W600's closest competitors include the AMD Radeon HD 6950 with an average score of 6210 (a 0.2% difference), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 at 6270 (-0.7%), and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 at 6282 (-0.9%). The Quadro M4000's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 (-0.3%), the AMD Radeon 610M at 5444 (0.4%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (-0.6%).

The percentile rankings differ as well. The FirePro W600 sits at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile, despite having a much higher OpenCL score. This is because the Quadro M4000's average benchmark score of 5467 includes all its tests, and several of those scores are low. For example, the Passmark DirectX 12 score is only 26, and the DirectX 10 score is 33. In contrast, the FirePro W600 has only the single OpenCL score, so its average is exactly 6223.

The Quadro M4000's varied benchmark results show a clear pattern: strong compute performance (Geekbench OpenCL 19118, Geekbench Vulkan 24640, Passmark GPU Compute 2660) but weaker DirectX legacy performance (Passmark DirectX 9: 113, DirectX 10: 33, DirectX 11: 49, DirectX 12: 26). The Passmark G3D score is 6680, which is respectable, and the G2D score is 673.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 dominates in compute. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it scores 19118 versus 6223 for the AMD FirePro W600, a 67.4% advantage for the Quadro M4000.

Q: How do the memory specifications compare?

A: The Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Quadro M4000 offers four times the capacity and three times the bandwidth.

Q: Which card supports more displays?

A: The FirePro W600 has 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the Quadro M4000 has 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The FirePro W600 supports two additional displays natively.

Q: What are the power requirements?

A: The FirePro W600 has a 75 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested PSU of 250 W. The Quadro M4000 has a 120 W TDP and requires one 6-pin connector, with a suggested PSU of 300 W.

Q: Which card has better DirectX 12 support?

A: The Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro W600 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The Quadro M4000's feature level is higher, indicating better support for modern DirectX 12 features.

Q: How do the physical dimensions differ?

A: The FirePro W600 is 168 mm (6.6 inches) long, 111 mm (4.4 inches) high, and 20 mm (0.8 inches) wide. The Quadro M4000 is 241 mm (9.5 inches) long and 111 mm (4.4 inches) high, with no recorded width. The FirePro W600 is significantly shorter.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 for compute-heavy professional workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 19118 is more than triple the FirePro W600's 6223, and it offers substantially more memory, bandwidth, shading units, and texture units. The Quadro M4000 also has a broader benchmark profile, with Vulkan support (24640 in Geekbench Vulkan) and DirectX 12 (12_1) that the FirePro W600 lacks.

However, the AMD FirePro W600 has a specific niche where it wins: multi-display output. With 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, it supports two more monitors than the Quadro M4000's 4x DisplayPort 1.2. For users running a six-monitor setup for data visualization or control room applications, the FirePro W600 is the only choice between these two. It also consumes less power (75 W versus 120 W) and needs no power connector, simplifying installation.

The release timeline matters here. The FirePro W600 launched on 2012-06-12, while the Quadro M4000 launched on 2015-06-28. The three-year gap explains the architectural differences: GCN 1.0 versus Maxwell 2.0. The Quadro M4000's successor is Quadro Pascal, while the FirePro W600's successor is Radeon Pro Polaris, indicating both were replaced by newer generations.

For users prioritizing compute, memory capacity, and modern API support, the Quadro M4000 is the superior card. For users prioritizing maximum display outputs and minimal power draw, the FirePro W600 has clear advantages. The database shows a single head-to-head benchmark, and the Quadro M4000 wins it decisively, but the FirePro W600's unique display configuration remains a valid reason for selection in specific scenarios.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W600 | NVIDIA Quadro M4000 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell 2.0 |

| Chip | Cape Verde | GM204 |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 5,200 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 398 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 13.1M / mm² |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 8 GB |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 256 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 192.3 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 1664 |

| TMUs | 32 | 104 |

| ROPs | 16 | 64 |

| Pixel Rate | 12.00 GPixel/s | 49.47 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.00 GTexel/s | 80.39 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 768.0 GFLOPS | 2.573 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 120 W |

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

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 300 W |

| Display Outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | 4x DisplayPort 1.2 |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

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

| Width | 20 mm (0.8 inches) | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2012-06-12 | 2015-06-28 |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | Not recorded |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Quadro Kepler |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | Quadro Pascal |