AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD Radeon 760M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon 760M than the AMD FirePro M4000 in OpenCL compute?

A: The Radeon 760M scores 20,255 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5,537 for the FirePro M4000, a 265.8% advantage. That is the only benchmark where both cards have recorded scores, and the 760M wins it outright.

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

A: The Radeon 760M sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M4000 sits in the 32nd percentile. The 760M also has a higher average benchmark score: 6,019 versus 5,537.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture units?

A: Both have identical core counts: 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The difference is not in raw unit counts but in clock speed and architecture generation.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each card?

A: The Radeon 760M uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent." The FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Q: Which card supports ray tracing?

A: Only the Radeon 760M has dedicated ray tracing cores (8 RT cores). The FirePro M4000 has no ray tracing hardware listed.

Q: What is the DirectX support difference?

A: The Radeon 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), while the FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). The 760M also supports Vulkan 1.4 versus Vulkan 1.2.170 on the FirePro.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the AMD Radeon 760M is the superior GPU by every measurable metric. It outperforms the FirePro M4000 by 265.8% in the only shared benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), has a higher average score (6,019 vs 5,537), and ranks in a higher percentile (35th vs 32nd).

The Radeon 760M is the pick for anyone needing modern compute performance, ray tracing support, and current API compatibility. It is an active product released in 2024, built on a 4 nm process, and designed as an integrated graphics processor (IGP) for Phoenix-based systems. Its boost clock reaches 2599 MHz, and its FP32 throughput is 5.323 TFLOPS.

The FirePro M4000 is an end-of-life mobile workstation part from 2012. Its 691.2 GFLOPS FP32 performance, 10.80 GPixel/s pixel rate, and 21.60 GTexel/s texture rate are all dramatically lower than the 760M's 41.58 GPixel/s and 83.17 GTexel/s. The FirePro does have one advantage: dedicated 1024 MB GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, which may be preferable in systems where shared memory is a bottleneck. However, that single benefit does not offset the massive compute deficit.

Choose the Radeon 760M for modern gaming, compute workloads, or any task requiring current API support. Choose the FirePro M4000 only if you specifically need a legacy MXM module with dedicated VRAM and are constrained by an older system's form factor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison is limited to a single recorded benchmark: Geekbench OpenCL. The Radeon 760M scores 20,255 against the FirePro M4000's 5,537, producing a delta of 265.8%. This is not a marginal victory; it is a generational leap.

To contextualize the 760M's score, its nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (average score 6,001, delta 0.3%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6,000, delta 0.3%), and NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996, delta 0.4%). The 760M essentially trades blows with these cards, all within a 0.4% band. Meanwhile, the FirePro M4000's nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5,508, delta 0.5%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5,501, delta 0.7%), and AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5,483, delta 1%). The FirePro edges these out slightly.

The gap between the two reviewed cards is stark: the 760M's average score across all benchmarks is 6,019, which is 482 points higher than the FirePro's 5,537. In OpenCL specifically, the 760M is nearly four times faster.

Beyond the shared test, the 760M has additional recorded benchmarks: Passmark G3D (5,310), Passmark G2D (890), Passmark GPU Compute (2,840), Geekbench Vulkan (30,336), 3DMark Steel Nomad DX12 (400), and several Passmark DirectX tests. The FirePro M4000 has no scores for these tests, so no further direct comparison is possible.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ fundamentally in their memory architecture, clock behavior, power envelope, and physical form factor.

Memory: The Radeon 760M uses system-shared memory with a "System Dependent" bandwidth. The FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5, a 128-bit bus, 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, and a 1000 MHz memory clock (4 Gbps effective).

Clocks: The 760M has a base clock of 800 MHz and a boost clock of 2599 MHz. The FirePro M4000 lists no base or boost clocks, only the memory clock.

Power: The 760M has a 15 W TDP. The FirePro M4000 has a 33 W TDP. The 760M draws less than half the power while delivering far more performance.

Form Factor: The 760M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no slot width and no power connectors. The FirePro M4000 is an MXM Module with an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface.

Bus Interface: The 760M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The FirePro uses MXM-A (3.0).

Display Outputs: The 760M is "Motherboard Dependent." The FirePro is "Portable Device Dependent."

Production Status: The 760M is Active. The FirePro is End-of-life.

Release Date: The 760M launched on 2024-01-30. The FirePro launched on 2012-06-26.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is enormous. The Radeon 760M is built on RDNA 3.0 architecture (chip: Phoenix, generation: Navi III IGP) using a 4 nm TSMC process. The FirePro M4000 uses GCN 1.0 architecture (chip: Chelsea, generation: FirePro Mobile Mx000) on a 28 nm TSMC process.

Transistors: The 760M packs 25,390 million transistors on a 178 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 142.6M per mm². The FirePro has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a density of just 12.2M per mm². The 760M has nearly 17 times more transistors.

Ray Tracing: The 760M includes 8 dedicated RT cores. The FirePro has none.

Compute Rates: The 760M delivers 5.323 TFLOPS FP32 and 5.323 TFLOPS FP16 (1:1 ratio). The FirePro delivers 691.2 GFLOPS FP32 and has no listed FP16 capability.

Pixel and Texture Rates: The 760M achieves 41.58 GPixel/s and 83.17 GTexel/s. The FirePro achieves 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s.

API Support: The 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 760M also supports the latest Vulkan revision, which matters for modern game engines and compute frameworks.

Predecessor/Successor: The 760M's predecessor is Navi II IGP. The FirePro's predecessor is FirePro Mobility, and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon 760M wins in:

• Compute performance: 265.8% ahead in Geekbench OpenCL.
• Raw throughput: 5.323 TFLOPS FP32 versus 691.2 GFLOPS.
• Pixel and texture rates: 41.58 GPixel/s and 83.17 GTexel/s versus 10.80 and 21.60.
• Modern API support: DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4.
• Ray tracing: 8 dedicated RT cores.
• Power efficiency: 15 W TDP versus 33 W.
• Process technology: 4 nm versus 28 nm.
• Production status: Active versus End-of-life.
• Overall average score: 6,019 versus 5,537.

AMD FirePro M4000 wins in:

• Dedicated memory: 1024 MB GDDR5 with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth versus system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth.
• Form factor for legacy systems: MXM module compatibility.
• Lower transistor count may imply simpler integration in older platforms.

The FirePro's dedicated VRAM is its only concrete advantage. In systems where system-shared memory competes with CPU workloads, a dedicated 64.00 GB/s GDDR5 solution can provide more predictable memory performance. However, the 760M's memory bandwidth is "System Dependent," meaning in a well-configured modern system with fast RAM, it could potentially exceed the FirePro's fixed bandwidth. The data does not specify this outcome, so it remains a qualitative consideration.

For all compute, gaming, and modern workload scenarios, the Radeon 760M is the clear choice. The FirePro M4000 is only relevant for maintaining legacy MXM-based mobile workstations where the 760M's IGP form factor cannot physically fit.