FirePro W8100 vs Quadro M4000
Aggregated performance score
FirePro W8100 outperforms Quadro M4000 by 9% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 292 | 275 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 10.46 | 6.60 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2015−2019) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | Hawaii |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 29 June 2015 (8 years ago) | 23 June 2014 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $791 | no data |
| Current price | $314 (0.4x MSRP) | $590 |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Quadro M4000 has 58% better value for money than FirePro W8100.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1664 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 773 MHz | 824 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 6,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 220 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 80.39 | 131.8 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,573 gflops | 4,219 gflops |
Size and 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 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | 279 mm |
| Width | 1" (2.5 cm) | 2-slot |
| Form factor | no data | full height / full length |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 2x 6-pin |
| SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 5000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 192 GB/s | 320 GB/s |
Video outputs and ports
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | DP DP DP DP 3-pin Stereo | 4x DisplayPort, 1x SDI |
| Number of simultaneous displays | 4 | no data |
| Multi-display synchronization | Quadro Sync | no data |
| StereoOutput3D | no data | 1 |
| DisplayPort count | no data | 4 |
| Dual-link DVI support | no data | 1 |
| HD сomponent video output | no data | 1 |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Vision Pro | + | no data |
| Mosaic | + | no data |
| High-Performance Video I/O6 | + | no data |
| nView Desktop Management | + | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 5.2 | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
FirePro W8100 outperforms Quadro M4000 by 9% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
FirePro W8100 outperforms Quadro M4000 by 9% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
FirePro W8100 outperforms Quadro M4000 by 93% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 17.28 | 18.79 |
| Recency | 29 June 2015 | 23 June 2014 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 220 Watt |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro M4000 and FirePro W8100.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
