FirePro W4100 vs Quadro FX 2800M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 2800M with FirePro W4100, including specs and performance data.
W4100 outperforms 2800M by a whopping 260% 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 | 1160 | 774 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.02 | 5.48 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | G92 | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 December 2009 (16 years ago) | 13 August 2014 (11 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 cores | 96 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 630 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 20.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.288 TFLOPS | 0.6451 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 48 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 171 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | low profile / half length |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 72 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 | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 31
+93.8%
| 16
−93.8%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 3 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−66.7%
|
14−16
+66.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−64.5%
|
50−55
+64.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−160%
|
65−70
+160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−120%
|
30−35
+120%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−66.7%
|
14−16
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−64.5%
|
50−55
+64.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−120%
|
30−35
+120%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−183%
|
16−18
+183%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−66.7%
|
14−16
+66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−83.3%
|
10−12
+83.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−64.5%
|
50−55
+64.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1900%
|
20−22
+1900%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−350%
|
27−30
+350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−173%
|
30−33
+173%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−200%
|
9−10
+200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
This is how FX 2800M and FirePro W4100 compete in popular games:
- FX 2800M is 94% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the FirePro W4100 is 1900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FirePro W4100 performs better in 38 tests (72%)
- there's a draw in 15 tests (28%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.99 | 3.56 |
| Recency | 1 December 2009 | 13 August 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 50 Watt |
FirePro W4100 has a 260% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
The FirePro W4100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2800M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 2800M is a mobile workstation graphics card while FirePro W4100 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
