GPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986, while the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537. The Quadro K4000M leads by 7.5%, as indicated by the deltaPct of -7.5% for the FirePro M4000.

Q: How does the AMD FirePro M4000 compare to its closest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M?

A: The FirePro M4000 scores 5537, which is 1.2% lower than the Quadro M500M’s average of 5604. This places the FirePro M4000 slightly behind that particular competitor.

Q: What is the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M’s standing relative to the AMD FirePro W4100?

A: The Quadro K4000M scores 5986, essentially tied with the FirePro W4100’s average of 5987, showing a deltaPct of 0%. This indicates near-identical OpenCL performance between the two.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has 4 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 89.60 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count and what is the ratio?

A: The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has 3,540 million transistors, which is 2.36 times the 1,500 million transistors found in the AMD FirePro M4000. The die sizes are 294 mm² for NVIDIA and 123 mm² for AMD.

Q: What are the power consumption figures for these two GPUs?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has a TDP of 33 W, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has a TDP of 100 W, making the NVIDIA GPU roughly three times more power-hungry.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two mobile workstation GPUs is substantial. The AMD FirePro M4000 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Chelsea chip, while the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK104 chip. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The NVIDIA chip is physically much larger, with a die size of 294 mm² compared to AMD’s 123 mm². This corresponds to a transistor count of 3,540 million for NVIDIA versus 1,500 million for AMD. Interestingly, the transistor density is nearly identical: 12.0M per mm² for NVIDIA and 12.2M per mm² for AMD, reflecting the same manufacturing node.

In terms of compute resources, the Quadro K4000M is far more generously equipped. It has 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro M4000 offers 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This means NVIDIA has 1.875 times the shading units, 2.5 times the TMUs, and double the ROPs.

Clock speeds differ significantly as well. The Quadro K4000M runs at a fixed 601 MHz for both base and boost, while the FirePro M4000’s core clocks are not listed. However, the memory clocks show NVIDIA’s memory running at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) versus AMD’s 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Despite the lower memory clock, NVIDIA’s wider 256-bit bus yields higher real bandwidth.

The bus interface also differs: AMD uses MXM-A (3.0) while NVIDIA uses MXM-B (3.0). Both are MXM modules, and both have no additional power connectors. API support shows AMD with DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while NVIDIA has DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The production status for both is end-of-life, with release dates in mid-2012.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are clear: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M wins. The Quadro K4000M scores 5986 against the FirePro M4000’s 5537, producing a 7.5% victory margin. This is a meaningful gap in a compute-oriented workload, indicating that NVIDIA’s higher shading unit count and memory bandwidth translate into tangible performance advantages.

Looking at the rival context reinforces this outcome. The FirePro M4000’s score of 5537 places it among a cluster of mobile GPUs with similar performance. It is 0.5% ahead of the GeForce MX130 (5508) and 0.7% ahead of the GTX 765M (5501). It is also 1% ahead of the Radeon R7 M440 (5483). However, it trails the Quadro M500M (5604) by 1.2%. This shows the FirePro M4000 is competitive within its immediate peer group, but it is not a standout performer.

The Quadro K4000M’s score of 5986 sits in a slightly higher performance tier. It is exactly tied with the FirePro W4100 (5987) and essentially tied with the Quadro K4000 (5982), showing a 0.1% gap. It is also within 0.2% of the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996) and the GTX 770M (6000), though those deltas are negative, meaning the Quadro K4000M is marginally behind. This indicates the Quadro K4000M is at the upper boundary of its performance class, while the FirePro M4000 is closer to the middle.

The percentile rankings corroborate this. The Quadro K4000M sits at the 34th percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile. This 2-percentage-point difference may seem small, but it reflects the consistent edge NVIDIA holds in this comparison. The benchmark data suggests that for OpenCL compute tasks, the Quadro K4000M is the stronger choice by a measurable margin.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs diverge on nearly every measurable field. The process node is identical at 28 nm, and both use TSMC as the foundry, but the chip designs are fundamentally different in scale.

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M has 3,540 million transistors on a 294 mm² die, while the AMD FirePro M4000 has 1,500 million on a 123 mm² die. This gives the NVIDIA chip a 2.36x transistor advantage and a 2.39x die-size advantage. The transistor density is effectively the same, at 12.0M per mm² for NVIDIA and 12.2M per mm² for AMD.

Memory capacity is a major differentiator: the Quadro K4000M ships with 4 GB of GDDR5, while the FirePro M4000 has only 1 GB (1024 MB). The memory bus width is 256-bit for NVIDIA versus 128-bit for AMD, and the resulting bandwidth is 89.60 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, a 40% advantage for NVIDIA.

Compute resources show similar disparity. The Quadro K4000M offers 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 32 ROPs. The FirePro M4000 offers 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 12.02 GPixel/s for NVIDIA versus 10.80 GPixel/s for AMD, and texture rate is 48.08 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 1,153.9 GFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 691.2 GFLOPS for AMD.

Clock speeds are listed differently. The Quadro K4000M has a base and boost clock of 601 MHz, while the FirePro M4000’s core clocks are not specified. Memory clocks show AMD’s memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus NVIDIA’s at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). Despite AMD’s higher memory clock, NVIDIA’s wider bus wins on bandwidth.

Power consumption is a stark contrast: the Quadro K4000M draws 100 W, while the FirePro M4000 draws only 33 W. Both use MXM modules, but the bus interface differs (MXM-A for AMD, MXM-B for NVIDIA). API support shows AMD with DirectX 12 (11_1) and NVIDIA with DirectX 12 (11_0), while Vulkan support is 1.2.170 for AMD and 1.2.175 for NVIDIA.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute performance: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 7.5%. It also holds advantages in nearly every hardware specification that matters for raw throughput, including shading units, TMUs, ROPs, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, and FP32 performance.

The AMD FirePro M4000 does have one significant advantage: power efficiency. At 33 W TDP versus 100 W, the FirePro M4000 draws roughly one-third the power of the Quadro K4000M. This could be relevant for thermally constrained mobile workstations, but it comes at the cost of substantial performance.

In terms of benchmark standing, the Quadro K4000M’s 34th percentile ranking is slightly better than the FirePro M4000’s 32nd percentile. The rival comparisons reinforce this: the Quadro K4000M ties with the FirePro W4100 and Quadro K4000, while the FirePro M4000 trails the Quadro M500M.

For users prioritizing compute performance in mobile workstations, the Quadro K4000M is the stronger option based on the data. For users prioritizing power efficiency and lower thermal output, the FirePro M4000 is the more conservative choice, though it sacrifices 7.5% performance.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA Quadro K4000M wins in every benchmark category present in the data. The sole head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, goes to NVIDIA with a score of 5986 versus 5537. This makes it the recommended choice for OpenCL compute workloads, 3D rendering tasks that leverage shading units, and any application that benefits from higher memory bandwidth (89.60 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s) or larger frame buffer capacity (4 GB versus 1 GB).

The AMD FirePro M4000’s wins are not in performance but in efficiency and form factor. At 33 W, it consumes 67% less power than the Quadro K4000M’s 100 W. It also uses the smaller MXM-A form factor compared to the MXM-B on the NVIDIA side. This makes the FirePro M4000 more suitable for thinner, lighter mobile workstations where thermal headroom is limited and battery life is a concern.

In terms of competitive positioning, the FirePro M4000 sits comfortably among mid-range mobile GPUs like the GeForce MX130 and GTX 765M, while the Quadro K4000M edges into a slightly higher performance bracket alongside the FirePro W4100 and Quadro K4000. The data shows that for users who need maximum compute density in a mobile workstation, the Quadro K4000M is the superior choice. For users who need adequate performance with minimal power draw, the FirePro M4000 is a viable alternative, though the performance gap is measurable.