
FirePro M4150 vs Quadro K2000M

FirePro M4150
Popular choices:

Quadro K2000M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FirePro M4150 is positioned at rank 211 and the Quadro K2000M is on rank 58, so the Quadro K2000M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro M4150
Performance Per Dollar Quadro K2000M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro M4150 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.7% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (4 GB vs 2 GB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro K2000M.
| Insight | FirePro M4150 | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.7%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Quadro K2000M offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Quadro K2000M holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $50), it costs 40% less, resulting in a 65.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FirePro M4150 | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+65.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) | ✅More affordable ($30) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro M4150 and Quadro K2000M

FirePro M4150
The FirePro M4150 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in October 16 2013. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 715 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,011 points.

Quadro K2000M
The Quadro K2000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 1 2012. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 745 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 1,004 points. Launch price was $265.27.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro M4150 scores 1,011 and the Quadro K2000M reaches 1,004 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro M4150 is built on GCN 1.0 while the Quadro K2000M uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (FirePro M4150) vs 384 (Quadro K2000M). Raw compute: 0.5491 TFLOPS (FirePro M4150) vs 0.5722 TFLOPS (Quadro K2000M).
| Feature | FirePro M4150 | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 1,011 | 1,004 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.5491 TFLOPS | 0.5722 TFLOPS+4% |
| ROPs | 8 | 16+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 32+33% |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB+200% | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro M4150 | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The FirePro M4150 comes with 4 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro K2000M has 2 GB. The FirePro M4150 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | FirePro M4150 | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 4 GB+100% | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (FirePro M4150) vs 11.1 (11_0) (Quadro K2000M). Vulkan: 1.2 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 6 vs 4.
| Feature | FirePro M4150 | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12+8% | 11.1 (11_0) |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| Max Displays | 6+50% | 4 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: VCE 1.0 (FirePro M4150) vs NVENC (Quadro K2000M). Decoder: UVD vs PureVideo HD (VP5). Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (FirePro M4150) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (Quadro K2000M).
| Feature | FirePro M4150 | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | VCE 1.0 | NVENC |
| Decoder | UVD | PureVideo HD (VP5) |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro M4150 draws 150W versus the Quadro K2000M's 55W — a 92.7% difference. The Quadro K2000M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro M4150) vs 350W (Quadro K2000M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | FirePro M4150 | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 55W-63% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | — |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C-13% | 80°C |
| Perf/Watt | 6.7 | 18.3+173% |
Value Analysis
The Quadro K2000M costs 40% less ($20 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 20.2 (FirePro M4150) vs 33.5 (Quadro K2000M) — the Quadro K2000M offers 65.8% better value. The FirePro M4150 is the newer GPU (2013 vs 2012).
| Feature | FirePro M4150 | Quadro K2000M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $200 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50 | $30-40% |
| Performance per Dollar | 20.2 | 33.5+66% |
| Codename | Opal | GK107 |
| Release | October 16 2013 | June 1 2012 |
| Ranking | #879 | #886 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
















