AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD FirePro W4170M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL performance, the AMD FirePro M4000 or the AMD FirePro W4170M?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 is faster. It scores 5537 in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, while the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034. This gives the M4000 a 10% performance advantage.

Q: How does the AMD FirePro M4000 compare to its closest rivals in benchmark performance?

A: The M4000 sits in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs. It is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508), 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501), and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483). However, it trails the NVIDIA Quadro M500M by 1.2%, which scores 5604.

Q: Where does the AMD FirePro W4170M rank among its nearest competitors?

A: The W4170M is in the 30th percentile of all GPUs. It is 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018) and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998). It falls 0.6% behind both the AMD Radeon R7 M340 and the AMD Radeon R7 240, each of which scores 5063.

Q: What are the memory specifications for both GPUs?

A: Both cards use GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The M4000 has 1024 MB of memory, while the W4170M has 2 GB. Both run memory at 1000 MHz, which translates to 4 Gbps effective.

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

A: Yes. Both are built on the GCN 1.0 architecture and use a 28 nm process from TSMC. They also support the same APIs: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are the differences in physical specifications like pixel rate and texture rate?

A: The M4000 has a pixel rate of 10.80 GPixel/s, while the W4170M has a lower 7.200 GPixel/s. However, both GPUs achieve the same texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the AMD FirePro M4000 in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5537 outstrips the W4170M's 5034 by a full 10%. For users running OpenCL-accelerated workloads, the M4000 is the stronger pick.

That said, the W4170M offers double the memory capacity with 2 GB versus 1 GB, which can matter for larger datasets or higher-resolution textures. The recorded data shows both cards deliver identical texture rates at 21.60 GTexel/s, so texture-bound tasks will see parity.

The M4000 is the choice for maximum compute throughput and higher pixel fill rates. The W4170M is the pick for workloads that demand more memory capacity without sacrificing texture performance. The M4000 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, but the W4170M's larger frame buffer gives it a distinct niche.

Neither card is current; both are end-of-life products. Users seeking modern features should look elsewhere, but among these two, the M4000 has the edge in raw compute.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537, while the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034. The delta is 10% in favor of the M4000.

This result aligns with the silicon differences. The M4000 packs 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units, while the W4170M has 384 shading units and 24 TMUs. More execution resources generally translate to higher compute scores, and that is exactly what the data shows.

The W4170M does close the gap in texture throughput. Both cards post 21.60 GTexel/s, meaning the W4170M's lower TMU count is offset by its higher clock speeds. The W4170M runs at a base of 825 MHz and boost of 900 MHz, while the M4000 has no listed base or boost clock in the database.

Pixel rate is another clear win for the M4000. It achieves 10.80 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s for the W4170M. This is a 50% advantage in raw pixel throughput, driven by the M4000's 16 ROPs versus just 8 on the W4170M.

FP32 performance is identical. Both cards deliver 691.2 GFLOPS, meaning floating-point compute workloads will see no difference between them. This is notable because the W4170M achieves parity despite fewer shading units, thanks to its higher clocks.

In the nearest-rival context, the M4000's 5537 score places it just above the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508) and just below the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604). The W4170M's 5034 score sits close to the AMD Radeon R7 M340 and AMD Radeon R7 240, both at 5063.

The head-to-head record stands at 1 win for the M4000 and 0 for the W4170M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge in several key specifications. The most obvious is memory capacity: the M4000 has 1024 MB, while the W4170M has 2 GB. Both use GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Shading units differ significantly. The M4000 has 512, while the W4170M has 384. Texture mapping units also differ: 32 on the M4000 versus 24 on the W4170M. ROPs are doubled on the M4000 with 16 versus 8 on the W4170M.

Clock speeds are only listed for the W4170M, which runs at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. The M4000 has no base or boost clock recorded. Memory clocks are identical at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Pixel rate favors the M4000 at 10.80 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s. Texture rate is equal at 21.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is also equal at 691.2 GFLOPS.

The bus interface differs. The M4000 uses MXM-A (3.0), while the W4170M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors.

Power draw is listed only for the M4000 at 33 W. The W4170M has no TDP recorded in the database.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ substantially. The M4000 uses 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the W4170M uses 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical: 12.2M / mm² for the M4000 and 12.3M / mm² for the W4170M.

Release dates are far apart. The M4000 launched on 2012-06-26, while the W4170M launched on 2015-04-22. Both are end-of-life and share the same predecessor and successor in the FirePro Mobility and Radeon Pro Mobile lines.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 1.0 architecture from AMD, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The chip names differ: the M4000 uses "Chelsea," while the W4170M uses "Opal." Despite the architectural similarity, the chips are not identical.

The M4000's Chelsea chip is larger and more complex. It contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The W4170M's Opal chip is smaller with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly the same, indicating the same manufacturing process and design rules.

Compute resources scale with the die size. The M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The W4170M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The M4000's larger chip provides more execution units across the board.

However, the W4170M compensates with higher clocks. The M4000 has no listed base or boost clock, but the W4170M runs at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. This allows the W4170M to match the M4000 in texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s) and FP32 throughput (691.2 GFLOPS), despite having fewer units.

Both chips support the same API feature set: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has RT cores or tensor cores, as these are GCN 1.0 parts from before those features existed. FP16 performance is not recorded for either GPU.

Memory architecture is identical: 128-bit bus, GDDR5, 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The W4170M has double the capacity at 2 GB, but the interface and bandwidth are the same.

Both chips are mobile parts with MXM module form factors and no power connectors. The M4000 is rated at 33 W TDP, while the W4170M's TDP is not listed in the database.

The bus interface differs, with the M4000 using MXM-A (3.0) and the W4170M using PCIe 3.0 x8. This does not affect compute performance in the recorded benchmarks but may influence system integration options.

In summary, the M4000 uses a larger, more heavily equipped chip, while the W4170M uses a smaller die with higher clocks to reach parity in some metrics. The M4000 wins on raw compute and pixel throughput, while the W4170M offers more memory. Both share the same fundamental GCN 1.0 architecture and manufacturing process.