AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 are both end-of-life professional workstation graphics cards, but they represent different eras of GPU design. The data shows a decisive performance gap between them, with the AMD part winning every single head-to-head benchmark comparison available. While the Quadro K4000 holds its own in certain legacy specifications, the benchmark results indicate that the Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the superior performer for modern compute workloads, particularly those leveraging newer API features.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear and consistent picture: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 across all three comparative tests, with margins that are nothing short of dominant. The largest victory for the AMD card comes in the Geekbench Metal test, where it scores 21,018 points against the Quadro K4000’s 4,166 points. This translates to a staggering delta of 404.5% in favor of the Radeon Pro WX 4100, indicating that the AMD architecture is vastly more efficient at executing the low-level, high-throughput tasks that Metal benchmarks emphasize.

The results for OpenCL and Vulkan, while less extreme than Metal, still show a massive performance advantage for the AMD card. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the Radeon Pro WX 4100 achieves a score of 17,642, compared to the Quadro K4000’s 6,816. This represents a 158.8% advantage, meaning the AMD card delivers over two and a half times the compute performance in this test. Similarly, in the Vulkan benchmark, the AMD card scores 18,703 against the NVIDIA card’s 6,964, a 168.6% lead. These results suggest that the Radeon Pro WX 4100 is not just faster in a single niche, but offers a comprehensive performance uplift across different graphics and compute APIs.

When looking at the overall average benchmark scores, the gap narrows slightly but remains significant. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 boasts an average benchmark score of 6,330, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 trails with an average of 5,982. This places the AMD card in the 37th percentile of all GPUs, whereas the Quadro K4000 sits at the 34th percentile. While the percentile difference is small, the raw delta in the head-to-head tests highlights that the AMD card is fundamentally more capable in modern workloads. The NVIDIA card’s nearest rivals, including the Quadro K4000M and AMD FirePro W4100, are all within a 0.2% delta of its average score, underscoring that the K4000 is a product of its time, while the WX 4100’s closest competitor, the Radeon R7 M350, is only 0.1% away, making the WX 4100’s performance position quite distinct from the older NVIDIA part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two cards is stark and explains the performance gulf seen in the benchmarks. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is built on the GCN 4.0 architecture (chip codename Baffin), manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. In contrast, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 uses the older Kepler architecture (chip GK106), fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This process node difference is critical: the smaller 14 nm node allows for a much higher transistor density, with the AMD card packing 24.4 million transistors per mm² compared to the NVIDIA card’s 11.5 million per mm². While the AMD chip has more total transistors (3,000 million vs. 2,540 million), it does so on a significantly smaller die (123 mm² vs. 221 mm²), highlighting the efficiency gains of the newer manufacturing process.

The core configurations also differ considerably. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 is equipped with 1,024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster output units (ROPs). The Quadro K4000, on the other hand, has fewer shading units at 768 but matches the TMU count at 64 and has more ROPs at 24. Despite having more ROPs, the NVIDIA card’s pixel rate is lower at 12.96 GPixel/s versus the AMD card’s 19.22 GPixel/s, due to the AMD card’s higher clock speeds. The AMD card’s base clock is 1125 MHz with a boost of 1201 MHz, whereas the K4000’s clocks are not specified in the data, indicating a likely lower operational frequency.

Memory subsystems present a trade-off. The AMD card offers a larger frame buffer of 4 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA card features 3 GB of GDDR5 on a wider 192-bit bus, resulting in a higher bandwidth of 134.8 GB/s. This gives the Quadro K4000 an advantage in raw memory bandwidth, which could benefit certain bandwidth-sensitive tasks, but the AMD card’s superior compute throughput appears to overshadow this in the overall benchmark results. Feature support also differs, with the AMD card supporting DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA card is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and an older Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD card also supports FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, a feature that the NVIDIA card lacks entirely, making the WX 4100 more suited for emerging compute workloads.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the clear winner for any application that prioritizes raw compute performance or modern API compatibility. The data shows a 404.5% lead in Metal, a 158.8% lead in OpenCL, and a 168.6% lead in Vulkan over the Quadro K4000. For users running applications that leverage these APIs—such as CAD, scientific simulation, or machine learning inference—the Radeon Pro WX 4100 offers a transformative performance upgrade. Its smaller die size and lower TDP of 50 W (versus 80 W for the NVIDIA card) also indicate a more power-efficient design, though the Quadro K4000 does require a 6-pin power connector while the AMD card does not.

However, the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is not without its merits, though they are not reflected in the compute benchmarks. Its wider 192-bit memory bus and higher memory bandwidth of 134.8 GB/s could theoretically provide an edge in scenarios that are purely bandwidth-bound, such as certain types of texture-heavy rendering or large framebuffer operations. Additionally, its higher ROP count (24 vs. 16) suggests it might handle certain rasterization workloads differently. Nevertheless, the sheer magnitude of the AMD card’s wins in the head-to-head tests makes it the recommended choice for virtually any modern workload. The Quadro K4000’s average benchmark score of 5,982 places it in the 34th percentile, while the WX 4100 sits at the 37th percentile, reinforcing the AMD card’s superior standing.

Specification Differences

The specifications of the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and NVIDIA Quadro K4000 differ in nearly every major category. The most notable differences are in the process node (14 nm vs. 28 nm), transistor count (3,000 million vs. 2,540 million), and die size (123 mm² vs. 221 mm²). The AMD card has a higher shading unit count (1,024 vs. 768), but the NVIDIA card has more ROPs (24 vs. 16). The AMD card has a higher base clock (1125 MHz) and boost clock (1201 MHz), while the NVIDIA card’s clocks are not listed. Memory capacity favors AMD (4 GB vs. 3 GB), but bandwidth favors NVIDIA (134.8 GB/s vs. 96.00 GB/s) due to its wider 192-bit bus. The bus interface also differs: the AMD card uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the NVIDIA card uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

Power and physical specifications show the AMD card is more efficient, with a TDP of 50 W and no power connectors required, compared to the NVIDIA card’s 80 W TDP and single 6-pin connector. Both cards are single-slot, but the AMD card is significantly shorter at 168 mm (6.6 inches) versus the NVIDIA card’s 241 mm (9.5 inches). Display outputs are also different, with the AMD card offering four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connections, while the NVIDIA card provides one DVI and two DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Finally, the release dates are nearly four years apart (2016-11-09 for AMD vs. 2013-02-28 for NVIDIA), and the launch MSRP for the AMD card was 399 USD, while the NVIDIA card launched at 1,269 USD.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher compute performance in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 significantly outperforms the NVIDIA Quadro K4000, scoring 17,642 versus 6,816 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, a 158.8% advantage.

Q: Does the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 win any benchmark comparisons?

A: No. The data shows the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 winning all three head-to-head benchmark tests (Metal, OpenCL, and Vulkan), with 3 wins for AMD and 0 for NVIDIA.

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

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has a higher memory bandwidth of 134.8 GB/s due to its 192-bit bus, while the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has a bandwidth of 96.00 GB/s on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card supports more advanced graphics APIs?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has an average benchmark score of 6,330, placing it in the 37th percentile, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has an average score of 5,982, in the 34th percentile.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has a lower TDP of 50 W and does not require any power connectors, whereas the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 has a TDP of 80 W and requires a single 6-pin power connector.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the definitive winner in compute-heavy and modern API-based workloads. Its benchmark results show a 404.5% lead in Metal, a 158.8% lead in OpenCL, and a 168.6% lead in Vulkan. This makes it the clear choice for professionals running applications that utilize GPGPU compute, real-time ray tracing via Vulkan, or any workload that can leverage the newer DirectX 12 (12_0) feature set. Its lower TDP (50 W) and lack of power connectors also make it easier to integrate into compact or power-constrained systems. The card’s smaller physical footprint (168 mm length) further enhances its flexibility in smaller chassis.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000, while losing all compute benchmarks, has specific hardware attributes that could be advantageous in certain niche scenarios. Its higher memory bandwidth (134.8 GB/s) and wider 192-bit bus might offer better performance in bandwidth-bound tasks like high-resolution multi-sample anti-aliasing or large texture streaming, where raw throughput matters more than compute shader execution. Its higher ROP count (24 vs. 16) could also provide an edge in fill-rate-limited scenarios, despite its lower overall pixel rate. However, these are theoretical advantages not reflected in the provided benchmark data. For users with legacy applications that are optimized for Kepler’s specific quirks or that rely on the DVI output (which the AMD card lacks), the K4000 remains a functional, albeit outdated, option. Ultimately, the data suggests that for any forward-looking or compute-intensive use case, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the superior hardware.