FirePro W4100 vs GeForce GTX 590
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 590 with FirePro W4100, including specs and performance data.
GTX 590 outperforms W4100 by a whopping 119% 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 | 512 | 714 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.68 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.63 | 5.41 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | Cape Verde |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 24 March 2011 (13 years ago) | 13 August 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 ×2 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 607 MHz | 630 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 1,500 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 38.91 ×2 | 20.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.244 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.6451 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 ×2 | 16 |
| TMUs | 64 ×2 | 32 |
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 | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 279 mm | 171 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Form factor | no data | low profile / half length |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) ×2 | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 768-bit (384-bit per GPU) ×2 | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1707 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 327.7 GB/s ×2 | 72 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
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 | Three Dual Link DVI-IMini DisplayPort | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | - | + |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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.
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:
| 900p | 47
+124%
| 21−24
−124%
|
| Full HD | 111
+594%
| 16
−594%
|
| 1200p | 112
+124%
| 50−55
−124%
|
| 4K | 6−7
+100%
| 3
−100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.30 | no data |
| 4K | 116.50 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+223%
|
12−14
−223%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+157%
|
14−16
−157%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+223%
|
12−14
−223%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+112%
|
16−18
−112%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+57.7%
|
50−55
−57.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+157%
|
14−16
−157%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+223%
|
12−14
−223%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
+89.6%
|
65−70
−89.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+79.4%
|
30−35
−79.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+112%
|
16−18
−112%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 24−27
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
+150%
|
12−14
−150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+200%
|
7
−200%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+57.7%
|
50−55
−57.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+157%
|
14−16
−157%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
+79.4%
|
30−35
−79.4%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+189%
|
9−10
−189%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+112%
|
16−18
−112%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+81.3%
|
16−18
−81.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+90.9%
|
10−12
−90.9%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
+57.7%
|
50−55
−57.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
+133%
|
21−24
−133%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+121%
|
27−30
−121%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+44.8%
|
27−30
−44.8%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+136%
|
35−40
−136%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+18.8%
|
16−18
−18.8%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+121%
|
18−20
−121%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+150%
|
12−14
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
This is how GTX 590 and FirePro W4100 compete in popular games:
- GTX 590 is 124% faster in 900p
- GTX 590 is 594% faster in 1080p
- GTX 590 is 124% faster in 1200p
- GTX 590 is 100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Metro Exodus, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 590 is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 590 surpassed FirePro W4100 in all 58 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.48 | 3.41 |
| Recency | 24 March 2011 | 13 August 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 3072 MB (1536 MB per GPU) | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 365 Watt | 50 Watt |
GTX 590 has a 119.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
FirePro W4100, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 630% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 590 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro W4100 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 590 is a desktop 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.
