AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD FirePro W4100 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains a single direct benchmark comparison between the AMD FirePro W4100 and the AMD FirePro M4000, and it is a narrow victory for the mobile part. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro M4000 scores 5537, while the FirePro W4100 scores 5478. That is a delta of 1.1 percent in favor of the M4000, a margin that is effectively within run-to-run variance for workstation-class GPUs of this era.

The average benchmark score across all recorded tests tells a slightly different story. The FirePro W4100 has an average score of 5987, pulled up by its additional Geekbench Vulkan result of 6496. The FirePro M4000 has only one recorded benchmark, the OpenCL score of 5537, so its average is identical to that single result. The W4100 therefore holds a 450-point advantage in average benchmark score across the full set of measurements, though this is driven by the Vulkan workload rather than by any head-to-head OpenCL dominance.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the W4100 sits in a tight cluster. Its average score of 5987 places it within 0.2 percent of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000), and within 0.1 percent of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982). The closest match is the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5986, with a delta of exactly 0 percent. This indicates that the W4100's overall performance level is essentially identical to several mid-range professional and consumer mobile GPUs from the same period, regardless of their architectural differences.

The M4000's nearest rivals show a similar pattern but at a slightly lower absolute level. Its average score of 5537 is 0.5 percent above the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508), 0.7 percent above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501), and 1 percent above the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483). It trails the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604) by 1.2 percent. These deltas are all small, confirming that the M4000 occupies a performance tier that is close to entry-level mobile professional GPUs.

The percentile rankings reinforce this positioning. The W4100 sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile. That two-point gap is modest, but it is consistent with the W4100's higher average score driven by the Vulkan result. In the only direct comparison, however, the M4000 comes out ahead in OpenCL by 59 points, a 1.1 percent margin that gives it the sole head-to-head win recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the only direct benchmark comparison?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5537, against the AMD FirePro W4100's 5478, a delta of 1.1 percent in the M4000's favor.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The FirePro W4100 has an average score of 5987 across its two recorded benchmarks (OpenCL and Vulkan). The FirePro M4000 has an average of 5537, based on its single OpenCL result, leaving the W4100 ahead by 450 points overall.

Q: Why is the W4100's average score higher even though it lost the head-to-head test?

A: The W4100 has an additional recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 6496, which is substantially higher than either card's OpenCL result. This Vulkan score raises the W4100's average above the M4000's single OpenCL score.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W4100 is effectively tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986, delta 0 percent) and within 0.2 percent of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M. The M4000 is 0.5 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130, 0.7 percent ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, and 1.2 percent behind the NVIDIA Quadro M500M.

Q: Do the two GPUs share the same architecture and process node?

A: Yes. Both use the GCN 1.0 architecture, are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and have identical transistor counts of 1,500 million with a die size of 123 mm².

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The FirePro W4100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5. Both use a 128 bit memory bus and have exactly 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

Despite sharing the GCN 1.0 architecture, a 28 nm TSMC process, and identical silicon-level resources, the two GPUs are built on different physical chips. The FirePro W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip, while the FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip. Both chips contain 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in the same transistor density of 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter.

The compute resources are identical on paper. Both GPUs have 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. Neither GPU has any ray tracing cores or tensor cores, consistent with their GCN 1.0 generation. The pixel rate and texture rate differ slightly despite the same core counts, with the M4000 achieving 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s, versus the W4100's 10.08 GPixel/s and 20.16 GTexel/s. This indicates that the M4000 runs at a slightly higher clock speed, although the base and boost clock fields are not recorded in the database.

The FP32 performance follows the same pattern. The M4000 delivers 691.2 GFLOPS, while the W4100 delivers 645.1 GFLOPS, a difference of 46.1 GFLOPS that reflects the M4000's higher operating frequency. Neither GPU records FP16 performance, as both predate the widespread use of half-precision compute in professional graphics.

The memory subsystem is architecturally identical in terms of bus width and bandwidth. Both use GDDR5 memory with a 128 bit bus and 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, and both run the memory at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective data rate. The only memory difference is capacity, with the W4100 featuring 2 GB against the M4000's 1024 MB.

The API support is also identical. Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. This means software compatibility is not a differentiator between the two, and any performance gap in the recorded benchmarks comes down to the slight clock speed and memory capacity differences rather than feature support.

Specification Differences

The most significant specification difference is memory capacity. The FirePro W4100 ships with 2 GB of GDDR5, while the FirePro M4000 ships with 1024 MB. Both use the same 128 bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, so the W4100's advantage is purely in capacity, not throughput.

The thermal design power differs by 17 W. The W4100 has a TDP of 50 W, while the M4000 has a TDP of 33 W. This makes the M4000 the more power-efficient part per unit of compute, given that it delivers higher FP32 performance at a lower power envelope.

The physical form factor is a major differentiator. The W4100 is a single-slot desktop card with dimensions of 171 mm in length and 69 mm in height, requiring no power connectors and a suggested power supply of 250 W. The M4000 is an MXM module, with no recorded dimensions, and uses the MXM-A (3.0) bus interface. Its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, meaning the actual output configuration depends on the laptop or mobile workstation it is installed into.

The bus interface also differs. The W4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the M4000 uses MXM-A (3.0), which is a mobile module standard rather than a PCIe slot. The display outputs on the W4100 are four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connectors, while the M4000 has no fixed display outputs.

The release dates are also different. The W4100 was released on August 12, 2014, while the M4000 was released on June 26, 2012, a gap of just over two years. Both are end-of-life products, and both have null launch MSRP values in the database, so no pricing information is available. The W4100's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris, while the M4000's predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro M4000 wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 1.1 percent margin. It also delivers higher pixel rate (10.80 versus 10.08 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (21.60 versus 20.16 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 performance (691.2 versus 645.1 GFLOPS). It does all of this at a lower TDP of 33 W versus the W4100's 50 W, making it the more efficient choice for compute workloads when power is a constraint. This is notable because the M4000 achieves these wins despite being the older product by two years.

The FirePro W4100 wins in overall average benchmark score, recording 5987 against the M4000's 5537, thanks to its additional Vulkan score of 6496. This indicates that the W4100 has a meaningful advantage in Vulkan-based workloads, which the M4000 cannot match because it lacks a recorded Vulkan score. The W4100 also has double the memory capacity with 2 GB versus 1024 MB, which is critical for applications that need larger working sets for textures, geometry, or compute buffers.

The W4100's desktop form factor with PCIe 3.0 x16 and four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs makes it suited for fixed workstations with multi-monitor setups. The M4000's MXM module form factor is designed for mobile workstations, where its lower TDP and portable device dependent outputs are advantages in a laptop chassis. The M4000's higher compute rates also suggest that in pure OpenCL compute tasks, it can deliver more throughput per watt than the W4100.

The percentile ranking also favors the W4100, which sits at the 34th percentile versus the M4000's 32nd percentile. This is a two-point difference in overall standing among all GPUs in the database, reflecting the W4100's stronger combined OpenCL and Vulkan results.

The Verdict

The data points to a split decision. For OpenCL compute workloads, the FirePro M4000 is the better performer, as evidenced by its direct benchmark win and its higher FP32, pixel rate, and texture rate figures. It achieves these results at a lower TDP, making it the efficiency leader between the two. Anyone running OpenCL-heavy tasks in a mobile workstation should favor the M4000 based on the recorded measurements.

For Vulkan workloads, the FirePro W4100 is the clear winner, with a score of 6496 that the M4000 cannot contest in the database. The W4100's average score of 5987 also places it at the 34th percentile, two points above the M4000's 32nd percentile. The W4100's 2 GB memory capacity is double the M4000's 1024 MB, which is a decisive advantage for applications that exceed the M4000's memory ceiling.

The choice ultimately depends on the use case. If the workload is primarily OpenCL with a premium on power efficiency, the M4000 wins. If the workload includes Vulkan, requires more memory, or targets a desktop workstation with multi-monitor output, the W4100 is the stronger pick. The W4100's desktop PCIe form factor and four mini-DisplayPort outputs also make it the more flexible option for fixed professional environments, while the M4000's MXM module design restricts it to compatible mobile platforms.

Given that the W4100 holds the higher average score, the higher percentile ranking, and the only Vulkan result, the database favors it as the more capable overall product. The M4000's single OpenCL win is real but narrow, and it comes in a workload where the two GPUs are separated by just 59 points. The W4100's additional Vulkan capability and doubled memory capacity give it a broader performance envelope that the M4000 cannot match. For most professional users who need a FirePro GCN 1.0 GPU today, the W4100 is the recommended choice based on the recorded data.