AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 vs NVIDIA Quadro M4000 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000. The Quadro M4000 wins all nine head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the largest margins appearing in DirectX 9, DirectX 10, and DirectX 11 workloads. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 never takes a single benchmark win. For users prioritizing raw graphics throughput in legacy or current DirectX titles, the Quadro M4000 is the stronger choice based on the recorded measurements.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a different story about overall positioning. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 holds an average score of 6330, placing it in the 37th percentile of all GPUs, while the Quadro M4000 averages 5467, sitting in the 32nd percentile. This discrepancy arises because the Radeon Pro WX 4100 has a Geekbench Metal score of 21018 that the Quadro M4000 cannot match, as the NVIDIA card lacks a Metal benchmark entry. The data suggests that for macOS-centric workflows or applications leveraging Metal, the Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the appropriate pick, despite losing every directly comparable test.

The Radeon Pro WX 4100 also distinguishes itself through power characteristics. Its 50 W TDP and lack of power connectors make it suitable for systems with limited power delivery, while the Quadro M4000 requires a 120 W TDP and a single 6-pin connector. The AMD card is also physically shorter at 168 mm compared to the 241 mm length of the NVIDIA card. For compact workstation builds or low-power environments, the Radeon Pro WX 4100 has a clear practical advantage. The Quadro M4000, by contrast, offers double the memory (8 GB versus 4 GB) and a wider 256-bit memory bus, which benefits large datasets and high-resolution textures.

Architecture Differences

The two cards come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 uses the Baffin chip built on GCN 4.0 architecture, fabricated on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node advantage for AMD is substantial: 14 nm versus 28 nm allows the Baffin die to pack 3,000 million transistors into 123 mm², achieving a transistor density of 24.4 million transistors per square millimeter. The GM204 die is much larger at 398 mm² and holds 5,200 million transistors, but its density drops to 13.1 million per square millimeter.

The compute configurations differ significantly. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 contains 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output pipelines. The Quadro M4000 carries 1664 shading units, 104 TMUs, and 64 ROPs. The NVIDIA card's higher ROP count directly explains its pixel rate of 49.47 GPixel/s versus 19.22 GPixel/s for the AMD card. Texture rate is closer: 80.39 GTexel/s for the Quadro versus 76.86 GTexel/s for the Radeon, despite the AMD card having fewer TMUs, because the AMD card's higher clock speeds compensate.

Clock behavior also differs. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 has a base clock of 1125 MHz and a boost clock of 1201 MHz. The Quadro M4000 has no listed base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 1502 MHz. The AMD card's FP32 throughput is 2.460 TFLOPS, while the NVIDIA card reaches 2.573 TFLOPS, a modest 4.6% advantage. The AMD card supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio (2.460 TFLOPS), while the Quadro M4000 has no recorded FP16 capability.

Both cards support DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan, but with different feature levels. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 supports DirectX 12_0 and Vulkan 1.3, while the Quadro M4000 supports DirectX 12_1 and Vulkan 1.4. The display outputs also differ: the AMD card has four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a connectors, while the NVIDIA card has four full-size DisplayPort 1.2 connectors.

FAQ

Q: Which card has higher raw graphics performance in DirectX benchmarks?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 wins every DirectX comparison. It leads by 51.5% in DirectX 10, 51% in DirectX 11, 50.4% in DirectX 9, and 15.4% in DirectX 12.

Q: Is the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 more power efficient?

A: Yes. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 has a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors, while the Quadro M4000 has a 120 W TDP and needs one 6-pin connector. The AMD card also suggests a 250 W power supply versus 300 W for the NVIDIA card.

Q: Which card has more memory?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 has 8 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus with 192.3 GB/s bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: How do the cards compare in compute workloads?

A: The Quadro M4000 scores 2660 in Passmark GPU compute, which is 44.5% higher than the Radeon Pro WX 4100's 1475. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Quadro scores 19118 versus 17642 for the Radeon, a 7.7% advantage.

Q: Does the Radeon Pro WX 4100 win any benchmark?

A: In the head-to-head comparison, the Radeon Pro WX 4100 wins zero tests. However, it has a Geekbench Metal score of 21018, which is not available for the Quadro M4000, so no direct comparison exists for that API.

Q: Which card is better for Vulkan workloads?

A: The Quadro M4000 is significantly better in Vulkan, scoring 24640 versus 18703 for the Radeon Pro WX 4100, a difference of 24.1%.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The process node favors AMD at 14 nm versus NVIDIA's 28 nm. The transistor count favors NVIDIA at 5,200 million versus 3,000 million. Die size favors NVIDIA at 398 mm² versus 123 mm², though transistor density favors AMD at 24.4 million per mm² versus 13.1 million per mm².

Memory capacity favors NVIDIA at 8 GB versus 4 GB. Memory bus width favors NVIDIA at 256 bit versus 128 bit. Memory bandwidth favors NVIDIA at 192.3 GB/s versus 96.00 GB/s. The memory clock is nearly identical: 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for AMD and 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA.

Compute unit counts favor NVIDIA: 1664 shading units versus 1024, 104 TMUs versus 64, and 64 ROPs versus 16. Pixel rate favors NVIDIA at 49.47 GPixel/s versus 19.22 GPixel/s. Texture rate favors NVIDIA at 80.39 GTexel/s versus 76.86 GTexel/s. FP32 throughput favors NVIDIA at 2.573 TFLOPS versus 2.460 TFLOPS. FP16 is available on AMD at 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1) but not recorded for NVIDIA.

Power and physical specifications differ substantially. The AMD card has a 50 W TDP, no power connectors, a 250 W suggested PSU, and measures 168 mm by 69 mm. The NVIDIA card has a 120 W TDP, one 6-pin connector, a 300 W suggested PSU, and measures 241 mm by 111 mm. Both are single-slot cards.

Bus interface favors NVIDIA at PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD. Display outputs favor AMD with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus four DisplayPort 1.2 for NVIDIA. API support favors NVIDIA for DirectX 12_1 versus 12_0 and Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.3, while both support OpenGL 4.6.

The release dates differ by roughly 17 months. The Quadro M4000 launched on 2015-06-28, while the Radeon Pro WX 4100 launched on 2016-11-09. Both are end-of-life products. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 has a launch MSRP of 399 USD, while no MSRP is recorded for the Quadro M4000.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest margin in the entire comparison appears in Passmark DirectX 10, where the Quadro M4000 scores 33 against the Radeon Pro WX 4100's 16, a 51.5% lead. DirectX 11 shows a nearly identical gap: 49 versus 24, a 51% difference. DirectX 9 follows the same pattern with 113 versus 56, a 50.4% margin. These three legacy DirectX tests demonstrate a consistent pattern where the NVIDIA card delivers roughly double the frame throughput.

The Passmark G3D test shows the Quadro M4000 at 6680 versus 3699 for the Radeon Pro WX 4100, a 44.6% advantage. Passmark GPU compute shows 2660 versus 1475, a 44.5% lead. These two results indicate that the NVIDIA card's advantage extends beyond legacy APIs into general 3D rendering and compute workloads.

Geekbench Vulkan shows the Quadro M4000 at 24640 versus 18703 for the Radeon Pro WX 4100, a 24.1% margin. This is the largest gap among the modern API tests. Geekbench OpenCL is the closest comparison overall: 19118 versus 17642, a 7.7% advantage for NVIDIA. Passmark DirectX 12 shows a 15.4% lead for the Quadro M4000 with scores of 26 against 22.

The smallest margin in the entire set belongs to Passmark G2D, where the Quadro M4000 scores 673 against 646, only 4% ahead of the Radeon Pro WX 4100. This near-tie in 2D performance suggests that 2D desktop workloads do not benefit from the NVIDIA card's architectural advantages, likely due to its higher ROP count not being relevant for 2D operations.

The Radeon Pro WX 4100's only unique data point is its Geekbench Metal score of 21018. Since no Metal benchmark exists for the Quadro M4000 result exists, the database cannot produce a head-to-head comparison for Metal, but the score is 11.9% higher than its own OpenCL result, indicating strong performance on that API.

Where Each One Wins

The Quadro M4000 wins in every directly comparable scenario, but the magnitude of its victories varies by workload type. For legacy DirectX applications, the NVIDIA card dominates with margins around 50%. For compute tasks, it maintains a 44.5% lead in Passmark GPU compute and a 7.7% lead in OpenCL. For Vulkan, it leads by 24.1%. For 3D rendering as measured by Passmark G3D, it leads by 44.6%. For DirectX 12, it leads by 15.4%. The smallest win is in 2D performance at 4%.

The Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the choice where power constraints matter. Its 50 W TDP means it can run without any power connector, making it suitable for systems where the Quadro M4000's 120 W requirement and 6-pin connector would be problematic. Its shorter length of 168 mm versus 241 mm also makes it more flexible for space-constrained chassis. The AMD card's 250 W suggested PSU versus 300 W for the NVIDIA card further reinforces this positioning.

For memory-heavy workloads, the Quadro M4000 is the clear winner. Its 8 GB capacity doubles the Radeon Pro WX 4100's 4 GB, and its 192.3 GB/s bandwidth is exactly double the 96.00 GB/s of the AMD card. The 256-bit bus width versus 128-bit provides additional headroom for large texture sets or data-parallel workloads.

For users targeting macOS environments, the Radeon Pro WX 4100 has the advantage of a recorded Geekbench Metal score of 21018, while the Quadro M4000 has no Metal benchmark data. This suggests the AMD card is the safer choice for Metal-based applications. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 also supports newer display technology with four mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, while the Quadro M4000 uses DisplayPort 1.2.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the Quadro M4000 offers 2.573 TFLOPS FP32 versus 2.460 TFLOPS for the Radeon Pro WX 4100. However, the AMD card provides FP16 at a 1:1 ratio, which can be valuable in workloads that utilize half-precision arithmetic, while the NVIDIA card has no recorded FP16 support.

In summary, the Quadro M4000 is the performance leader in all measured head-to-head tests, with particular strength in legacy DirectX and compute workloads. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the efficiency and form-factor leader, with lower power draw and a smaller footprint, while offering Metal support that the NVIDIA card lacks.