Quadro K4000M vs FirePro W9100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W9100 with Quadro K4000M, including specs and performance data.

FirePro W9100
2014
16 GB GDDR5, 750 Watt
18.52
+278%

W9100 outperforms K4000M by a whopping 278% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking328676
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.173.76
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameHawaiiGK104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date26 March 2014 (11 years ago)1 June 2012 (13 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores2816960
Core clock speed930 MHz601 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)750 Watt100 Watt
Texture fill rate163.748.08
Floating-point processing power5.238 TFLOPS1.154 TFLOPS
ROPs6432
TMUs17680
L1 Cache704 KB80 KB
L2 Cache1024 KB512 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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Form factorfull height / full lengthno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount16 GB4 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth320 GB/s89.6 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 Connectors6x mini-DisplayPort, 1x S-VideoNo outputs
StereoOutput3D+-
Dual-link DVI support+-
HD сomponent video output+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus-+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA-+

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.

FirePro W9100 18.52
+278%
K4000M 4.90

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.

FirePro W9100 7747
+278%
Samples: 39
K4000M 2049
Samples: 251

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.

FirePro W9100 43046
+613%
K4000M 6041

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 HD170−180
+262%
47
−262%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Fortnite 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Fortnite 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how FirePro W9100 and K4000M compete in popular games:

  • FirePro W9100 is 262% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.52 4.90
Recency 26 March 2014 1 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 16 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 750 Watt 100 Watt

FirePro W9100 has a 278% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

K4000M, on the other hand, has 650% lower power consumption.

The FirePro W9100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K4000M in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro W9100 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro K4000M is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro W9100
FirePro W9100
NVIDIA Quadro K4000M
Quadro K4000M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.3 18 votes

Rate FirePro W9100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 14 votes

Rate Quadro K4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro W9100 or Quadro K4000M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.