AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA Quadro K4000M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it shows a clear, though not overwhelming, victory for the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M. The K4000M posts a score of 5986, while the AMD FirePro M4000 manages 5537. That translates to an 8.1% advantage for the NVIDIA part. In practical terms, an 8.1% gap in an OpenCL workload is the difference between a task finishing noticeably sooner versus a slightly longer wait, but it is not a generational leap in performance. It is a win, and it is the only win the Quadro records in this head-to-head, but it is a modest one.

Looking at the wider field through the nearest rivals list, both cards sit in a similar performance stratum. The Quadro K4000M's score of 5986 is essentially tied with the AMD FirePro W4100, which scores 5987, a delta of 0%. It also matches the desktop NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982, which is a 0.1% difference in favor of the mobile part. The K4000M is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M, both of which score 5996 and 6000 respectively. This clustering within a 0.4% band suggests that at this specific workload, the K4000M is right at the center of a very tight group of GPUs spanning different architectures and generations.

The FirePro M4000, by contrast, sits in a slightly lower performance neighborhood according to its nearest rivals. Its score of 5537 is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508) and 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501). It also leads the AMD Radeon R7 M440 by 1%, which scores 5483. However, it trails the NVIDIA Quadro M500M by 1.2%, as that GPU scores 5604. The spread among the FirePro's rivals is a bit wider than the Quadro's, but the takeaway is consistent: the M4000 is a solid performer for its class, yet it is not punching at the same level as the K4000M in this benchmark.

The percentile rankings reinforce this hierarchy. The Quadro K4000M lands in the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro M4000 sits in the 32nd percentile. A two-percentile gap is small, but it aligns with the 8.1% raw score difference. The data does not suggest that either card is a top-tier mobile workstation part; both are mid-range entries in their respective lineups. But within that mid-range, the NVIDIA part is the one that comes out ahead in compute performance according to this single metric.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the recorded OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M is faster. It scores 5986 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the AMD FirePro M4000's 5537, giving the NVIDIA part an 8.1% lead.

Q: How does the Quadro K4000M compare to its closest rivals?

A: The database shows the K4000M is effectively tied with the AMD FirePro W4100 (5987, 0% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982, 0.1% delta). It trails the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M by 0.2% each.

Q: Where does the FirePro M4000 stand relative to its nearest competitors?

A: The FirePro M4000 leads the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 by 0.5%, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M by 0.7%, and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 by 1%. It is 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M500M.

Q: What is the performance percentile for each card in the database?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M sits in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the AMD FirePro M4000 sits in the 32nd percentile.

Q: Are these two cards comparable in memory capacity?

A: No. The Quadro K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 256-bit bus, while the FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has a pixel rate of 12.02 GPixel/s, which is higher than the AMD FirePro M4000's 10.80 GPixel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database, so on raw compute throughput, it is the clear pick. The 8.1% delta in Geekbench OpenCL is the kind of margin that shows up in rendering tasks, GPU-accelerated compute, and any OpenCL-based workload. The Quadro also has structural advantages that reinforce its win: it carries 4 GB of memory versus the FirePro's 1 GB, and it has a wider 256-bit memory bus versus 128-bit. That combination means the K4000M is better suited for workloads that need to hold larger datasets in VRAM or that benefit from higher memory bandwidth for streaming textures and geometry.

The AMD FirePro M4000 does not win any recorded benchmark, but it is not without its own merits. Its 33 W TDP is significantly lower than the Quadro's 100 W, which makes it a more power-efficient option for thin-and-light mobile workstations where thermal headroom is limited. The M4000 also uses a different bus interface, MXM-A (3.0), compared to the Quadro's MXM-B (3.0), which might matter for specific laptop chassis designs. For users whose primary concern is battery life or who are limited by the power delivery of their system, the FirePro is the more conservative choice. It also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the Quadro's DirectX 12 (11_0), which could be relevant if you are running a workload that exercises the newer feature level, though the practical difference in mobile workstation software is often minimal.

If the task is purely about maximizing compute performance and memory capacity, the Quadro K4000M is the winner. If the task is about fitting into a lower-power envelope or matching a specific MXM socket, the FirePro M4000 has a niche. But from a pure benchmark perspective, the data only records one victory, and it belongs to NVIDIA.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge significantly on paper. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses the GK104 chip with a 28 nm process from TSMC. It packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². The AMD FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, which works out to 12.2M per mm². The density is nearly identical, but the sheer scale of the NVIDIA chip is much larger.

Clock speeds tell a story of their own. The Quadro K4000M runs at a fixed 601 MHz base and boost, with memory at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The FirePro M4000 does not have a listed base or boost clock in the database, but its memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). This means the FirePro has faster memory clocked at the source, but the Quadro compensates with a much wider bus.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The Quadro has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 89.60 GB/s. The FirePro has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s. That is a 40% advantage in memory bandwidth for the Quadro, which is a substantial margin for bandwidth-sensitive workloads.

The compute resources also favor NVIDIA. The Quadro has 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. These are exactly half the TMU and ROP counts, and roughly half the shader count. Consequently, the pixel rate is 12.02 GPixel/s for the Quadro versus 10.80 GPixel/s for the FirePro, and the texture rate is 48.08 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,153.9 GFLOPS for the Quadro and 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The Quadro is rated at 100 W TDP, while the FirePro is rated at 33 W. That is a three-fold difference in power draw, which has direct implications for cooling and battery life in a mobile chassis. Both use MXM modules and have no power connectors, and both have display outputs that are portable device dependent.

The bus interfaces differ: the Quadro uses MXM-B (3.0), and the FirePro uses MXM-A (3.0). API support is close, with both supporting OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan (1.2.175 for NVIDIA, 1.2.170 for AMD). DirectX support differs slightly: the Quadro supports 12 (11_0), and the FirePro supports 12 (11_1).

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is a classic early-2010s NVIDIA versus AMD story. The Quadro K4000M is built on Kepler, NVIDIA's architecture that succeeded Fermi. Kepler was designed to be more efficient and scalable than its predecessor, with a focus on balanced compute and graphics throughput. The GK104 chip is a large, high-transistor-count design that relies on a wide memory bus and a high number of shader units to deliver performance.

The FirePro M4000 is built on GCN 1.0, AMD's Graphics Core Next architecture that succeeded the older TeraScale designs. GCN was a radical departure for AMD, shifting to a compute-first design with a different shader arrangement. The Chelsea chip is a smaller, lower-power design that emphasizes efficiency over raw transistor count. GCN 1.0 had a reputation for strong compute performance in certain workloads, but in this specific OpenCL benchmark, it does not overcome the Quadro's hardware advantage.

The transistor density is nearly identical (12.0M vs 12.2M per mm²), which means both companies were using the TSMC 28 nm process to its limits. The difference is that NVIDIA chose to build a much larger chip (294 mm² vs 123 mm²) and use the extra transistors for more shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and a wider memory interface. AMD chose a smaller die that fits into a much lower power envelope, sacrificing raw throughput for efficiency.

The generations also differ: the Quadro is from the "Quadro Kepler-M (Kx000M)" line, while the FirePro is from the "FirePro Mobile (Mx000)" line. The Quadro's predecessor is the Quadro Fermi-M, and its successor is the Quadro Maxwell-M. The FirePro's predecessor is the FirePro Mobility, and its successor is the Radeon Pro Mobile. Both are end-of-life products, with the Quadro released on 2012-05-31 and the FirePro on 2012-06-26, just under a month later.

The architectural differences do not change the benchmark outcome, but they explain it. The Kepler chip's larger resource pool, especially in terms of memory bandwidth and texture units, is what gives the Quadro its 8.1% edge in OpenCL. The GCN chip's efficiency advantage is real, but it is not reflected in the compute score; it is reflected in the TDP, where the FirePro draws less than a third of the Quadro's power.

The Verdict

The data points to the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M as the stronger performer in compute workloads. Its 5986 OpenCL score beats the FirePro M4000's 5537 by 8.1%, and it carries 4 GB of memory versus 1 GB, with 89.60 GB/s of bandwidth versus 64.00 GB/s. For any task that is memory-bound or shader-bound, the Quadro is the better choice. The 34th percentile ranking versus the 32nd percentile reinforces that it is a slightly better positioned part in the database.

The AMD FirePro M4000 is not without a reason to exist. Its 33 W TDP is a fraction of the Quadro's 100 W, making it the obvious pick for a laptop where thermals and battery life are the primary constraints. If you are building or buying a mobile workstation that must run cool and quiet, and the compute tasks are light, the FirePro is the more sensible option. It also has a smaller die (123 mm² vs 294 mm²), which could matter for manufacturing yields, but that is not a user-facing concern.

For the user who needs maximum OpenCL performance in a mobile workstation, the Quadro K4000M is the pick. For the user who prioritizes power efficiency and is willing to sacrifice compute throughput, the FirePro M4000 is the pick. There is no tie in the benchmark data: NVIDIA takes the only recorded win, and it takes it by a meaningful margin. The verdict is straightforward: if performance is the goal, choose the Quadro. If efficiency is the goal, choose the FirePro. The rest of the specification sheet aligns with those two paths.