AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD FirePro W5130M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded benchmark comparison between these two mobile workstation GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the data shows a decisive result. The AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5,537 points, while the AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4,904 points. This gives the M4000 a 12.9% lead, a substantial margin in compute performance. The M4000 wins the head-to-head competition 1 win to 0.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the M4000's score places it at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the W5130M sits at the 29th percentile. This three-percentage-point gap in percentile ranking confirms that the M4000's advantage is not merely a statistical artifact but a real performance tier difference. The M4000's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, which scores 5,604 points, putting the M4000 1.2% behind that competitor. By contrast, the W5130M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M360, which scores 4,931 points, placing the W5130M 0.5% behind it.

The M4000 also holds up well against its other nearest rivals. It leads the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5,508 points) by 0.5%, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5,501 points) by 0.7%, and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5,483 points) by 1%. These are narrow margins, but they show the M4000 clustering with a group of capable mobile GPUs from both NVIDIA and AMD. The W5130M, in contrast, sits in a slightly lower performance band. It leads the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4,901 points) by a razor-thin 0.1% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4,893 points) by 0.2%, but it trails the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4,929 points) by 0.5% and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4,931 points) by 0.5%.

The 12.9% delta between the two cards is noteworthy because both GPUs share the same architecture generation, process node, and transistor count. The performance gap arises from differences in clock speeds and memory configuration, which will be examined in the specification sections below. The benchmark data does not show any test where the W5130M outperforms the M4000, making the head-to-head result unambiguous in favor of the older card.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5,537 points, which is 12.9% higher than the AMD FirePro W5130M's 4,904 points.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its closest rival in the database?

A: The M4000's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro M500M at 5,604 points, which is 1.2% ahead of the M4000. The W5130M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M360 at 4,931 points, which is 0.5% ahead of the W5130M.

Q: What percentile ranking does each GPU hold among all GPUs in the database?

A: The M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile, while the W5130M sits at the 29th percentile. This indicates the M4000 outperforms a slightly larger share of the database's GPU population.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the W5130M beats the M4000?

A: No. The database records only one head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), and the M4000 wins that test. The W5130M has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How does the W5130M fare against the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450?

A: The W5130M scores 4,904 points, which is 0.2% ahead of the GTS 450's 4,893 points. This is a marginal advantage within the margin of typical benchmark variance.

Q: What is the performance gap between the M4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce MX130?

A: The M4000 leads the MX130 by 0.5%, with scores of 5,537 and 5,508 points respectively. This places the two GPUs in the same performance tier.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear conclusion: the AMD FirePro M4000 is the faster GPU in compute workloads. Its 12.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is substantial, and its higher percentile ranking (32nd versus 29th) reinforces that this is not a close contest. Users seeking maximum OpenCL compute performance from these two options should choose the M4000.

However, the W5130M is not without its own merits. The newer card (released in October 2015 versus June 2012) offers a larger memory capacity of 2 GB compared to the M4000's 1 GB. For workloads that are memory-capacity bound rather than compute bound, the W5130M could be the more practical choice despite its lower raw compute score. The W5130M also uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface, which is a more modern and broadly compatible connection standard than the M4000's MXM-A (3.0) module interface.

The data shows that the M4000 is the performance leader, while the W5130M offers advantages in memory capacity and interface flexibility. The decision between the two should hinge on whether the workload prioritizes raw OpenCL throughput (favoring the M4000) or memory capacity and system integration flexibility (favoring the W5130M). For users who can only choose one, the M4000's compute advantage is the more decisive factor in the recorded benchmarks.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share many core specifications, but several key differences emerge from the database. The most significant divergence is in memory capacity: the M4000 has 1,024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5, while the W5130M has 2 GB. Both use the same memory type (GDDR5), the same 128-bit bus width, and the same 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, so the W5130M's advantage is purely in capacity, not throughput.

Clock speeds also differ. The M4000 has no recorded base or boost clock, while the W5130M has a base clock of 900 MHz and a boost clock of 925 MHz. Despite this apparent clock speed advantage for the W5130M, the M4000 still achieves higher compute throughput, which suggests the M4000 may operate at higher effective clocks than listed, or that other factors are at play. The memory clock is identical: both run at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective.

The pixel and texture rates differ substantially. The M4000 delivers 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s, while the W5130M delivers 14.80 GPixel/s and 29.60 GTexel/s. This means the W5130M has 37% higher pixel fill rate and 37% higher texture fill rate. The FP32 compute performance also favors the W5130M on paper: 947.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. The W5130M's higher fill rates and FP32 figures appear to contradict its lower OpenCL benchmark score, which may indicate driver differences, thermal behavior, or benchmark-specific optimization.

Power and physical specifications differ as well. The M4000 has a TDP of 33 W, while the W5130M has no recorded TDP. The M4000 uses an MXM Module slot width with no power connectors, while the W5130M has no recorded slot width or power connector details. The bus interface differs: the M4000 uses MXM-A (3.0), while the W5130M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. Display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for the M4000, while no output information is recorded for the W5130M.

Release dates place the cards in different eras: the M4000 launched on June 26, 2012, while the W5130M launched on October 1, 2015. Both are marked as end-of-life production status.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental architecture: GCN 1.0. They are both built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, with the same transistor count of 1,500 million and the same die size of 123 mm². The transistor density is identical at 12.2 million transistors per square millimeter. This means the architectural foundation is essentially the same, with differences arising from implementation details rather than fundamental design.

The chip names differ: the M4000 uses the "Chelsea" chip, while the W5130M uses the "Tropo" chip. Both are based on GCN 1.0, but they are distinct silicon designs. Despite this, the compute core configuration is identical: 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores.

The generation labels differ. The M4000 belongs to the "FirePro Mobile (Mx000)" generation, while the W5130M belongs to the "FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)" generation. This reflects the naming convention change AMD introduced for its mobile FirePro lineup. Both share the same predecessor ("FirePro Mobility") and successor ("Radeon Pro Mobile") designations.

The API support is identical for both cards: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. This means software compatibility is the same across the two GPUs, and any performance difference in the benchmark cannot be attributed to API capability gaps.

The key architectural takeaway is that both GPUs are GCN 1.0 parts on the same process node with identical core counts and memory bus widths. The M4000's benchmark victory is not explained by a more advanced architecture or more execution units. Instead, the data suggests the M4000 may have been configured with more favorable clock behavior or driver tuning in the recorded OpenCL test, despite the W5130M's higher listed pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 peak. The W5130M's larger memory capacity (2 GB versus 1 GB) is the only clear architectural-level advantage it holds, and that does not translate into a higher OpenCL score in the recorded data.