AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD FirePro W600 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score in the database?

A: The AMD FirePro W600 records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 6223, while the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537. This gives the W600 a 12.4% advantage in the head-to-head benchmark.

Q: Do both cards use the same architecture and manufacturing process?

A: Yes. Both are built on GCN 1.0 architecture, use a 28 nm TSMC process, and each contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die with a transistor density of 12.2M per mm².

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The W600 has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the M4000 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus and deliver the same 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, with memory clocked at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the power requirement differences?

A: The W600 has a TDP of 75 W and a suggested PSU of 250 W, whereas the M4000 has a TDP of 33 W and no suggested PSU listed. Both draw power without external connectors.

Q: Which card has a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The W600 sits at the 36th percentile, while the M4000 is at the 32nd percentile. The W600 also has a higher average benchmark score of 6223 versus 5537.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each card according to the database?

A: For the W600, the nearest rival is the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6210, 0.2% lower), with the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282) being 0.9% higher. For the M4000, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604) is 1.2% higher, while the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483) is 1% lower.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W600 is the clear winner in raw compute performance. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 6223 places it ahead of the M4000's 5537 by 12.4%. The W600 also achieves higher pixel throughput at 12.00 GPixel/s versus 12.00 GPixel/s, higher texture rate at 24.00 GTexel/s versus 24.00 GTexel/s, and higher FP32 throughput at 768.0 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. It also carries twice the memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1 GB, which matters for workloads that exceed the smaller frame buffer.

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins in power efficiency and form factor. Its 33 W TDP is less than half of the W600's 75 W, making it suitable for mobile workstations where thermal and power budgets are tight. The M4000 uses an MXM Module slot width and an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, which is designed for portable systems, while the W600 is a single-slot, PCIe 3.0 x16 desktop card with a length of 168 mm (6.6 inches), height of 111 mm (4.4 inches), and width of 20 mm (0.8 inches). The M4000's display outputs are portable-device dependent, whereas the W600 offers six mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs for multi-display desktop setups.

In the database's head-to-head benchmark, the W600 wins the only test. However, the M4000's lower power draw and mobile-oriented design make it the appropriate choice for laptop-class systems, while the W600 targets fixed desktop workstations with high-density display output requirements.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Each die contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² area, resulting in identical transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The core configurations are identical: 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. Neither card includes dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores.

The fundamental architectural difference is the product segmentation. The W600 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx000) generation for desktop workstations, while the M4000 belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx000) generation for laptops. Despite the same architecture and similar core layout, the two are tuned for different physical environments. The W600 uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 bus interface and a single-slot cooler with no power connectors, drawing 75 W. The M4000 uses an MXM-A (3.0) interface and an MXM Module slot width, with no power connectors, drawing only 33 W. The lower power envelope of the M4000 likely forces lower clock behavior, which explains its reduced pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput despite identical shader, TMU, and ROP counts.

Both cards support the same API feature set: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The generation labels differ (FirePro GCN Wx000 versus FirePro Mobile Mx000), and the predecessor/successor paths differ as well: the W600 descends from FirePro Terascale and leads to Radeon Pro Polaris, while the M4000 descends from FirePro Mobility and leads to Radeon Pro Mobile.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W600 | AMD FirePro M4000 |

|----------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|

| Generation | FirePro GCN (Wx000) | FirePro Mobile (Mx000) |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Pixel Rate | 12.00 GPixel/s | 10.80 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 24.00 GTexel/s | 21.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 768.0 GFLOPS | 691.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 75 W | 33 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | None |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |

| Display Outputs | 6x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 168 mm / 6.6 in length, 111 mm / 4.4 in height, 20 mm / 0.8 in width | Not specified |

| Launch MSRP | 599 USD | None |

The two cards share identical memory type (GDDR5), bus width (128 bit), bandwidth (64.00 GB/s), memory clock (1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective), shading units (512), TMUs (32), ROPs (16), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistor count (1,500 million), die size (123 mm²), transistor density (12.2M / mm²), and API support (DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170). Both are end-of-life products, released in June 2012: the W600 on June 12 and the M4000 on June 26.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD FirePro W600 scores 6223, and the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537, yielding a 12.4% delta in favor of the W600. This result aligns with the theoretical throughput differences: the W600's FP32 of 768.0 GFLOPS is 11.1% higher than the M4000's 691.2 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate of 12.00 GPixel/s is 11.1% higher than 10.80 GPixel/s. The texture rate shows the same pattern, 24.00 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s, an 11.1% gap.

The W600 also benefits from double the memory capacity, although both cards have the same 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. In OpenCL workloads that are bandwidth-bound, the two would perform similarly; in capacity-bound or compute-bound tasks, the W600 has a clear edge. The M4000's nearest rivals in the database include the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, 0.5% lower), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, 0.7% lower), and AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, 1% lower), while the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604) sits 1.2% higher. The W600's nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon HD 6950 (6210, 0.2% lower), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 (6270, 0.7% higher), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5070 Ti SUPER (6270, 0.7% higher), and NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282, 0.9% higher).

The W600's percentile ranking of 36 places it just above the M4000's 32, and its average benchmark score of 6223 exceeds the M4000's 5537. In the only recorded head-to-head test, the W600 wins outright, but the M4000's 33 W TDP and mobile form factor remain its distinguishing advantages. For desktop users prioritizing raw OpenCL compute and multi-display output, the W600 is the stronger part. For mobile systems where power draw is critical, the M4000 offers a lower-power alternative with the same GCN 1.0 architecture and memory bandwidth.