GPU Comparison

The AMD FirePro M4000 and AMD FirePro W4100 are both end-of-life professional GPUs built on the same fundamental GCN 1.0 architecture, but they target very different physical environments. The M4000 is a mobile MXM module designed for laptops, while the W4100 is a single-slot desktop card. Benchmark data shows they are extremely close in raw compute performance, but their form factors and feature sets create clear separation for real-world use.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results are remarkably tight. The AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537, while the AMD FirePro W4100 scores 5478. That puts the M4000 ahead by only 1.1%. In practical terms, this is a statistical tie, a difference of 59 points on a scale of several thousand is well within run-to-run variance. Neither card offers a meaningful performance advantage over the other in OpenCL compute workloads.

Looking at broader positioning, the M4000’s average benchmark score is 5537, which places it at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508, a 0.5% lead for the M4000. The M4000 also edges out the AMD Radeon R7 M440 by 1% (5483 vs 5537). However, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M beats it by 1.2% with a score of 5604. This puts the M4000 in a tight cluster of entry-level mobile GPUs where performance differences are negligible.

The W4100 has a more interesting benchmark profile because it includes a Vulkan score in addition to OpenCL. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5478 is slightly lower than the M4000’s, but its Geekbench Vulkan score jumps to 6496. This Vulkan result lifts its average benchmark score to 5987, which places it at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, two percentage points higher than the M4000. The W4100’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5986, a 0% delta, meaning they are effectively identical in average performance. The NVIDIA Quadro K4000 is also essentially tied at 5982 (0.1% behind), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M sits 0.2% ahead at 6000.

The key insight here is that the W4100’s Vulkan support provides a measurable advantage in that specific API. While the M4000 lacks a Vulkan benchmark score entirely, the W4100 demonstrates that it can leverage modern graphics APIs for substantially higher throughput, the 6496 Vulkan score is 18.6% higher than its own OpenCL score. This suggests the W4100 is better equipped for contemporary workloads that utilize Vulkan, even though classic OpenCL compute performance is essentially identical between the two cards.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on form factor rather than raw performance. If you need a professional GPU for a mobile workstation, the AMD FirePro M4000 is the only option of the two, it is an MXM module, meaning it slots directly into a laptop. Its 33 W TDP is modest for mobile use, and its 1 GB VRAM is sufficient for basic professional workloads. The M4000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, but by a margin that is practically meaningless.

If you are building or upgrading a desktop workstation, the AMD FirePro W4100 is the obvious choice. It uses a standard PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, comes as a single-slot card measuring 171 mm in length, and provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs for multi-monitor setups. It doubles the VRAM to 2 GB, which matters for larger textures and datasets. It also shows a meaningful Vulkan performance advantage that the M4000 cannot match. While its OpenCL score is slightly lower, the average benchmark score is 8.1% higher (5987 vs 5537) thanks to the Vulkan result.

For most users, the W4100 is the better investment because it offers twice the memory, a desktop-friendly form factor, and demonstrated Vulkan capability. The M4000 only makes sense if you are constrained to a mobile platform and need a professional-grade GPU in that specific MXM form factor. Both cards are end-of-life, so neither should be purchased for new high-end workloads, but for legacy professional applications they remain serviceable options.

Architecture Differences

Both the AMD FirePro M4000 and AMD FirePro W4100 are built on GCN 1.0 architecture, manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. They share the same die size of 123 mm² and contain 1,500 million transistors each, resulting in an identical transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The fundamental compute resources are also identical: 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines.

The chips differ in their specific codenames, the M4000 uses the Chelsea chip while the W4100 uses Cape Verde, but this does not translate into different core counts. Both cards have the same 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The memory configuration is where a key difference appears: the M4000 has 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the W4100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus. Both run memory at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, yielding identical bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. The extra capacity on the W4100 does not increase bandwidth, but it allows larger working sets to stay in VRAM.

Clock-dependent performance metrics show slight differences. The M4000 achieves a pixel rate of 10.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s, while the W4100 is marginally lower at 10.08 GPixel/s and 20.16 GTexel/s. FP32 compute follows the same pattern: the M4000 delivers 691.2 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS for the W4100. These differences are small, roughly 7% in the M4000’s favor, and do not show up as a meaningful gap in the OpenCL benchmark.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The generation labels differ: the M4000 is part of "FirePro Mobile (Mx000)" while the W4100 belongs to "FirePro GCN (Wx100)". The M4000’s predecessor is "FirePro Mobility" and its successor is "Radeon Pro Mobile", whereas the W4100’s predecessor is "FirePro Terascale" and its successor is "Radeon Pro Polaris". The W4100 has a significantly higher TDP at 50 W versus the M4000’s 33 W, reflecting the desktop card’s less constrained thermal environment.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537 in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 5478 for the W4100. That is a 1.1% lead for the M4000, which is negligible in real-world terms.

Q: Does the W4100 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the W4100 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6496, which is significantly higher than its own OpenCL score of 5478. The M4000 has no Vulkan benchmark score listed, though both cards support Vulkan 1.2.170 in their API specifications.

Q: How much VRAM does each card have?

A: The M4000 has 1 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the W4100 has 2 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus with identical 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What form factor does each card use?

A: The M4000 is an MXM Module (MXM-A 3.0) designed for mobile workstations, while the W4100 is a single-slot desktop card using PCIe 3.0 x16 and measuring 171 mm in length.

Q: Which card has more display outputs?

A: The W4100 provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the M4000’s display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by the laptop manufacturer.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each card?

A: The M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 5537, while the W4100 ranks at the 34th percentile with an average score of 5987, driven largely by its Vulkan result.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins in pure OpenCL compute performance, taking the head-to-head benchmark by 1.1%. It also offers higher pixel rate (10.80 vs 10.08 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (21.60 vs 20.16 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (691.2 vs 645.1 GFLOPS). Its 33 W TDP makes it the more power-efficient choice, which is critical for mobile platforms where thermal headroom is limited. The M4000 is the only option if you need a professional GPU in an MXM module form factor for a laptop.

The AMD FirePro W4100 wins in overall average benchmark performance thanks to its Vulkan score, achieving 5987 versus the M4000’s 5537, an 8.1% advantage. It doubles the VRAM to 2 GB, which is a practical win for workloads that require larger textures or datasets. Its desktop form factor with PCIe 3.0 x16 connectivity and four mini-DisplayPort outputs makes it far more flexible for multi-monitor professional setups. The W4100 also has a higher percentile ranking at 34 versus the M4000’s 32, indicating slightly better standing relative to all GPUs.

For use-case guidance: choose the M4000 for mobile workstation deployments where power draw and MXM compatibility are non-negotiable. Choose the W4100 for desktop workstations where memory capacity, Vulkan API support, and multi-display output matter more than the marginal 1.1% OpenCL deficit. The W4100 is also the better choice for users who want to leverage modern graphics APIs, as it demonstrates a 18.6% uplift in Vulkan over its own OpenCL score, a capability the M4000 does not show in the data.

Specification Differences

The two cards share many specifications but differ in several key areas. The chip codename differs: Chelsea for the M4000 versus Cape Verde for the W4100. Memory capacity differs significantly: the M4000 has 1024 MB while the W4100 has 2 GB, both GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. Pixel rate differs at 10.80 GPixel/s for the M4000 versus 10.08 GPixel/s for the W4100. Texture rate differs at 21.60 GTexel/s versus 20.16 GTexel/s. FP32 compute differs at 691.2 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS.

TDP is a major differentiator: the M4000 draws 33 W while the W4100 draws 50 W. The W4100 specifies a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the M4000 has no suggested PSU listed. Slot width differs: the M4000 is an MXM Module while the W4100 is single-slot. Bus interface differs: MXM-A (3.0) for the M4000 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the W4100. Display outputs differ: the M4000 is "Portable Device Dependent" while the W4100 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2.

Physical dimensions are only listed for the W4100 at 171 mm length and 69 mm height. The W4100 has a release date of 2014-08-12, while the M4000 was released on 2012-06-26. Both are end-of-life, both lack a launch MSRP in the data, and both use the same 28 nm TSMC process with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The generation labels differ ("FirePro Mobile (Mx000)" versus "FirePro GCN (Wx100)"), as do the predecessor and successor designations. Neither card has base or boost clock specifications listed, and both run memory at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, yielding identical 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.