FirePro W2100 vs Quadro P4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro P4000 and FirePro W2100, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
P4000 outperforms W2100 by a whopping 1162% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 238 | 928 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 6.93 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 20.17 | 6.46 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP104 | Oland |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 February 2017 (9 years ago) | 12 August 2014 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $815 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1792 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 1202 MHz | 630 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1480 MHz | 680 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 7,200 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 26 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 165.8 | 13.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.304 TFLOPS | 0.4352 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 8 |
| TMUs | 112 | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 672 KB | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 256 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | low profile / half length |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1901 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 192 GB/s | 28.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 4x DisplayPort | 2x DisplayPort |
| Display Port | 1.4 | no data |
| DisplayPort count | no data | 2 |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | + |
| Optimus | + | - |
| 3D Stereo | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| nView Display Management | + | no data |
| Optimus | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 65
+442%
| 12
−442%
|
| 4K | 24−27
+1100%
| 2
−1100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 12.54 | no data |
| 4K | 33.96 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+3020%
|
5−6
−3020%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| Palworld | 70−75
+1067%
|
6−7
−1067%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 65−70
+3300%
|
2−3
−3300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+1667%
|
6−7
−1667%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+3020%
|
5−6
−3020%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+1720%
|
5−6
−1720%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+1210%
|
10−11
−1210%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+891%
|
10−12
−891%
|
| Palworld | 70−75
+1067%
|
6−7
−1067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+825%
|
12−14
−825%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+355%
|
40−45
−355%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+1667%
|
6−7
−1667%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 150−160
+3020%
|
5−6
−3020%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+514%
|
40−45
−514%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+465%
|
21−24
−465%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+1720%
|
5−6
−1720%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140
+1210%
|
10−11
−1210%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+891%
|
10−12
−891%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 95−100
+2375%
|
4−5
−2375%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+2000%
|
3−4
−2000%
|
| Palworld | 70−75
+1067%
|
6−7
−1067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+825%
|
12−14
−825%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 77
+756%
|
9−10
−756%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+355%
|
40−45
−355%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+1667%
|
6−7
−1667%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 60−65
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| Dota 2 | 130−140
+465%
|
21−24
−465%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+1720%
|
5−6
−1720%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+891%
|
10−12
−891%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+825%
|
12−14
−825%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 41
+356%
|
9−10
−356%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+355%
|
40−45
−355%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 130−140
+1210%
|
10−11
−1210%
|
| Palworld | 70−75
+1067%
|
6−7
−1067%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+1160%
|
5−6
−1160%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+1125%
|
16−18
−1125%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+1225%
|
4−5
−1225%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+1167%
|
3−4
−1167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+733%
|
21−24
−733%
|
| Valorant | 210−220
+1147%
|
16−18
−1147%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80
+1167%
|
6−7
−1167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+2067%
|
3−4
−2067%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70−75
+1360%
|
5−6
−1360%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45−50
+1467%
|
3−4
−1467%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 65−70
+1625%
|
4−5
−1625%
|
| Palworld | 40−45
+1233%
|
3−4
−1233%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50−55
+260%
|
14−16
−260%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+1364%
|
10−12
−1364%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+1333%
|
3−4
−1333%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Dota 2 | 85−90
+1660%
|
5−6
−1660%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+933%
|
3−4
−933%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+967%
|
3−4
−967%
|
| Palworld | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
This is how Quadro P4000 and FirePro W2100 compete in popular games:
- Quadro P4000 is 442% faster in 1080p
- Quadro P4000 is 1100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro P4000 is 4800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro P4000 surpassed FirePro W2100 in all 53 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 27.38 | 2.17 |
| Recency | 6 February 2017 | 12 August 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 26 Watt |
Quadro P4000 has a 1162% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
FirePro W2100, on the other hand, has 285% lower power consumption.
The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W2100 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
