AMD FirePro W7000 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000M Comparison

The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M and AMD FirePro W7000 are both end-of-life professional workstation GPUs, yet they represent distinct architectural approaches from their respective manufacturers. The M4000M is a mobile MXM module built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the W7000 is a single-slot desktop card using AMD’s older GCN 1.0 design. Both cards share the same 28 nm process node, 4 GB of GDDR5 memory, a 256-bit memory bus, and an identical count of 1280 shading units and 80 texture mapping units, making their specification sheets appear closer than their actual performance and feature sets. The data shows a split decision in benchmarks, with each card winning one of the two tests, and both hold a 65th percentile ranking among all GPUs. Their average benchmark scores differ by only 575 points, but the underlying architecture, power requirements, and physical form factors tell a more nuanced story about where each card fits.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M has an average benchmark score of 20480, which is 575 points higher than the AMD FirePro W7000’s average of 19905. The M4000M sits 0.3% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile in its nearest rival list, while the W7000 sits 0.1% above the NVIDIA Tesla K40m.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 19989, which is 12.2% higher than the AMD FirePro W7000’s score of 17808. This is the M4000M’s largest margin of victory across the two tests.

Q: Which GPU performs better in Vulkan?

A: The AMD FirePro W7000 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with a score of 22001, beating the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M’s score of 20971 by 4.7%. This reverses the OpenCL result and gives each card one head-to-head win.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M was released on 2015-08-17, while the AMD FirePro W7000 is older, having been released on 2012-06-12.

Q: What are the power and physical form factor differences?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is a 100 W MXM Module with no power connectors, designed for portable devices. The AMD FirePro W7000 is a 150 W single-slot card with a 1x 6-pin power connector, a 450 W suggested PSU, and dimensions of 242 mm in length and 111 mm in height.

Q: Do both cards support the same API versions?

A: No. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD FirePro W7000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, meaning the M4000M has a higher DirectX feature level and a newer Vulkan version.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. This chip contains 5,200 million transistors on a die size of 398 mm², giving a transistor density of 13.1 million transistors per square millimeter. In contrast, the AMD FirePro W7000 uses the Pitcairn chip based on the older GCN 1.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC on 28 nm, but with only 2,800 million transistors on a much smaller 212 mm² die, resulting in a nearly identical transistor density of 13.2 million transistors per square millimeter.

The clock behavior differs substantially. The M4000M has explicit base and boost clocks of 975 MHz and 1013 MHz, respectively, while the W7000 has no listed base or boost clocks in the data. Memory clocks also differ: the M4000M runs its GDDR5 at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, while the W7000 runs at 1200 MHz with 4.8 Gbps effective speed. This clock advantage helps the M4000M achieve higher memory bandwidth (160.4 GB/s versus 153.6 GB/s) despite identical memory size, type, and bus width.

The ROP count is a major architectural differentiator. The M4000M has 64 ROPs, double the 32 ROPs found on the W7000. This directly impacts pixel fill rate: the M4000M delivers 64.83 GPixel/s, more than double the W7000’s 30.40 GPixel/s. Texture fill rates are closer, with the M4000M at 81.04 GTexel/s versus 76.00 GTexel/s for the W7000, reflecting their identical TMU counts but different clock speeds. The FP32 compute figures are also close: 2.593 TFLOPS for the M4000M against 2.432 TFLOPS for the W7000, a 6.6% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data reveals a clear split in workload strengths. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000M wins decisively in OpenCL, posting 19989 points versus 17808 for the AMD FirePro W7000, a 12.2% advantage. This suggests the M4000M’s Maxwell architecture with its higher clocks, double ROP count, and greater memory bandwidth translates into better general-purpose compute performance in OpenCL workloads. The M4000M’s higher pixel rate (64.83 GPixel/s) and texture rate (81.04 GTexel/s) also position it as the stronger candidate for fill-rate-bound tasks.

The AMD FirePro W7000 wins in Vulkan, scoring 22001 against 20971 for the M4000M, a 4.7% margin. This indicates that despite its older GCN 1.0 architecture and lower raw compute figures, the W7000 handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently. The W7000’s advantage in this test is notable because it comes despite having half the ROPs, lower memory bandwidth, and a slower effective memory clock. For users prioritizing Vulkan-based applications, the W7000 is the better choice, while OpenCL-heavy workflows favor the M4000M.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA Quadro M4000M | AMD FirePro W7000 |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GM204 | Pitcairn |

| Transistors | 5,200 million | 2,800 million |

| Die Size | 398 mm² | 212 mm² |

| Base Clock | 975 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 1013 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) | 1200 MHz (4.8 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 160.4 GB/s | 153.6 GB/s |

| ROPs | 64 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 64.83 GPixel/s | 30.40 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 81.04 GTexel/s | 76.00 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 2.593 TFLOPS | 2.432 TFLOPS |

| TDP | 100 W | 150 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Single-slot |

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

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 450 W |

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

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

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions | Not listed | 242 mm (9.5 inches) length, 111 mm (4.4 inches) height |

| Release Date | 2015-08-17 | 2012-06-12 |

| Predecessor | Quadro Kepler-M | FirePro Terascale |

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

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two GPUs split their two benchmark encounters exactly evenly, with each winning one test. The most significant margin comes in Geekbench OpenCL, where the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M scores 19989 against the AMD FirePro W7000’s 17808. This 12.2% delta is the largest performance gap between the two cards in any metric. The M4000M’s advantages in this test are consistent with its higher clock speeds, doubled ROP count, and greater memory bandwidth. Its pixel rate of 64.83 GPixel/s is more than double the W7000’s 30.40 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 81.04 GTexel/s exceeds the W7000’s 76.00 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute difference of 2.593 TFLOPS versus 2.432 TFLOPS also favors the M4000M.

The Geekbench Vulkan test flips the result. The AMD FirePro W7000 scores 22001, beating the M4000M’s 20971 by 4.7%. This win comes despite the W7000’s lower raw specifications, suggesting that its GCN 1.0 architecture handles Vulkan workloads more efficiently than Maxwell 2.0. The W7000 also shows a closer position to its nearest rivals in this test context, as its average score of 19905 sits just 0.1% above the NVIDIA Tesla K40m and 0.7% above the AMD Radeon RX 6650 XT. The M4000M’s average score of 20480 sits 0.3% below the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070 Mobile and 0.4% below the Intel Arc B570.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs depends entirely on the target workload, as the benchmark data shows no overall winner. In OpenCL-based applications, the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M is the clear choice, offering 12.2% higher performance. Its architecture provides more than double the pixel fill rate (64.83 GPixel/s versus 30.40 GPixel/s) and higher texture throughput (81.04 GTexel/s versus 76.00 GTexel/s), along with greater FP32 compute (2.593 TFLOPS versus 2.432 TFLOPS). The M4000M also consumes less power at 100 W compared to 150 W, and its MXM Module form factor makes it suitable for portable workstation systems.

For Vulkan-centric workloads, the AMD FirePro W7000 is the better option, delivering 4.7% higher performance despite its older architecture and lower specifications. Its 4x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs make it a more flexible desktop solution, and its single-slot design with a 242 mm length fits standard workstation chassis. However, the W7000’s higher power draw (150 W), need for a 1x 6-pin power connector, and 450 W suggested PSU requirement are important considerations for system integration.

Users seeking a drop-in mobile solution with superior OpenCL compute and fill-rate performance should select the NVIDIA Quadro M4000M. Users building a desktop workstation with Vulkan applications in mind should choose the AMD FirePro W7000. The W7000’s launch MSRP was 899 USD. Given that both cards are end-of-life with identical percentile rankings (65th), the decision hinges on the specific API workload rather than overall capability. The data indicates that NVIDIA optimized the M4000M for raw throughput, while AMD’s W7000 demonstrates architectural efficiency in Vulkan that compensates for its hardware disadvantages.