AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD Radeon HD 6950 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable measurement in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL score, and it favors the AMD Radeon HD 6950 decisively. The desktop card records 6,210 points against the AMD FirePro M4000's 5,537 points, a 12.2% advantage. That margin is substantial enough to place these two products in different performance classes, even though both are now end-of-life hardware.

Looking at the broader database context reinforces the gap. The HD 6950 sits at the 36th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile. The four-point percentile difference translates into a meaningful separation in raw compute work. The HD 6950's nearest rivals include the AMD FirePro W600 at 6,223 points (0.2% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 Ti SUPER AD102 at 6,270 points (0.9% ahead), and the NVIDIA Quadro K620 at 6,282 points (1.1% ahead). The FirePro M4000's nearest rivals cluster around the 5,500 to 5,600 range: the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5,508 points (0.5% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5,501 points (0.7% behind), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5,483 points (1% behind), and the NVIDIA Quadro M500M at 5,604 points (1.2% ahead). The HD 6950 is closer in score to modern desktop-class parts, while the FirePro M4000 competes with older mobile-class GPUs.

The delta between the two cards in question, 12.2%, is larger than any delta between either card and its own nearest rivals. This suggests the architectural and hardware differences between the Cayman and Chelsea chips are more significant than typical generational refinement within a single product tier.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from completely different architectural families, which explains much of the performance divergence. The AMD Radeon HD 6950 uses the Cayman chip based on TeraScale 3, belonging to the Northern Islands (HD 6900) generation. The AMD FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip based on GCN 1.0, belonging to the FirePro Mobile (Mx000) generation.

The fabrication process differs by one node generation: the HD 6950 is built on TSMC's 40 nm process, while the FirePro M4000 uses TSMC's 28 nm process. Despite the older node, the HD 6950 packs considerably more hardware. The Cayman die contains 2,640 million transistors on a 389 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 6.8 million per square millimeter. The Chelsea die contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, with a much higher density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The FirePro M4000's die is less than one-third the area of the HD 6950's die, but the 28 nm process allows it to pack more transistors per area.

The compute resources diverge sharply. The HD 6950 has 1,408 shading units, 88 texture mapping units, and 32 render output units. The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That is roughly 2.75 times the shader count and TMUs on the desktop card, and double the ROPs.

Memory configuration also favors the HD 6950. It has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.0 GB/s of bandwidth with memory clocked at 1250 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s with memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The desktop card has exactly 2.5 times the memory bandwidth of the mobile card.

The resulting fill rates and compute throughput follow the hardware counts. The HD 6950 achieves 25.60 GPixel/s pixel rate and 70.40 GTexel/s texture rate, with FP32 compute of 2.253 TFLOPS. The FirePro M4000 achieves 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s, with FP32 of 691.2 GFLOPS. The HD 6950 delivers more than three times the FP32 throughput.

Power consumption tells a different story. The HD 6950 has a TDP of 200 W and requires dual-slot cooling, two 6-pin power connectors, and a 550 W suggested power supply. The FirePro M4000 has a TDP of 33 W, uses an MXM module form factor, requires no external power connectors, and has no suggested PSU. The power efficiency gap is stark: the mobile card draws 16.5% of the desktop card's power budget while delivering roughly 30.7% of its FP32 throughput.

API support also differs. The HD 6950 supports DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4, with no Vulkan support. The FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The newer GCN architecture has broader API compatibility, particularly the Vulkan support which the TeraScale 3 part completely lacks.

Physical dimensions and connectivity are likewise different. The HD 6950 is a 286 mm long, 126 mm tall, 42 mm wide dual-slot card with 2x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 2x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The FirePro M4000 is an MXM-A (3.0) module with display outputs dependent on the host portable device.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear split: the AMD Radeon HD 6950 is the stronger compute performer by 12.2% in Geekbench OpenCL, with 3.26 times the FP32 throughput, 2.5 times the memory bandwidth, and double the ROP count. Any workload that stresses raw compute, texture throughput, or memory bandwidth will favor the desktop part.

The AMD FirePro M4000, however, has structural advantages that matter in specific deployment scenarios. Its 33 W TDP versus 200 W means it can operate in systems where the HD 6950 physically cannot fit or be powered. The MXM module form factor and lack of external power connectors make it suitable for mobile workstations. The 28 nm process and 123 mm² die also make it dramatically smaller and more power-efficient.

For users who can accommodate a dual-slot, 286 mm long desktop card with a 550 W power supply, the HD 6950 is the clear choice on performance grounds. For anyone constrained by mobile form factors, power budgets, or thermal envelopes, the FirePro M4000 is the only viable option between the two, despite its lower scores.

The API differences also matter. The FirePro M4000 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1), while the HD 6950 maxes out at DirectX 11.2 and OpenGL 4.4 with no Vulkan. Software that requires Vulkan will only run on the FirePro M4000.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 6950 scores 6,210 points versus the AMD FirePro M4000's 5,537 points, a 12.2% advantage for the desktop card.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each card?

A: The HD 6950 has 160.0 GB/s from 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus. The FirePro M4000 has 64.00 GB/s from 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Does the FirePro M4000 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the FirePro M4000 supports Vulkan 1.2.170, along with DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6. The HD 6950 does not support Vulkan and maxes out at DirectX 11.2 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.4.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The HD 6950 has a TDP of 200 W and requires a 550 W suggested power supply with two 6-pin connectors. The FirePro M4000 has a TDP of 33 W and needs no external power connectors.

Q: How do their nearest rivals compare in average score?

A: The HD 6950's closest rival is the AMD FirePro W600 at 6,223 points, just 0.2% ahead. The FirePro M4000's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5,508 points, which is 0.5% behind the AMD mobile part.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The HD 6950 has 1,408 shading units, while the FirePro M4000 has 512. The desktop card also has 88 TMUs versus 32, and 32 ROPs versus 16.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon HD 6950 wins in every raw performance category recorded in the database. Its 12.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the headline figure, but the underlying hardware metrics paint a broader picture. The 2.253 TFLOPS FP32 throughput is more than three times the FirePro M4000's 691.2 GFLOPS. The 70.40 GTexel/s texture rate compares to 21.60 GTexel/s. The 25.60 GPixel/s pixel rate compares to 10.80 GPixel/s. The 160.0 GB/s memory bandwidth is 2.5 times the 64.00 GB/s of the mobile part.

The HD 6950 is the appropriate choice for desktop workstations where the 200 W power draw, dual-slot footprint, and 550 W PSU requirement are acceptable. Its 2 GB frame buffer and 256-bit memory bus provide headroom for texture-heavy workloads, and its 36th percentile standing places it above the FirePro M4000's 32nd percentile in the overall database.

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins in mobility and efficiency. Its 33 W TDP allows operation in laptops and compact systems where the HD 6950 cannot function. The MXM-A (3.0) form factor with no external power connectors makes it a drop-in module for compatible portable workstations. The 28 nm process and 123 mm² die produce a transistor density of 12.2M per mm², nearly double the HD 6950's 6.8M per mm², reflecting a more modern manufacturing approach.

The FirePro M4000 also wins on software compatibility. Its Vulkan 1.2.170 support and DirectX 12 (11_1) capability open doors to modern APIs that the HD 6950 cannot access with its DirectX 11.2 and OpenGL 4.4 ceiling. For applications that mandate Vulkan, the FirePro M4000 is the only option between these two.

The release timeline also separates the products: the HD 6950 launched in December 2010, while the FirePro M4000 launched in June 2012. The 18-month gap explains the architectural leap from TeraScale 3 to GCN 1.0, and the FirePro M4000's position as the successor generation's mobile representative. The HD 6950's predecessor was Evergreen with a successor of Southern Islands, while the FirePro M4000's predecessor was FirePro Mobility with a successor of Radeon Pro Mobile.

In summary, the HD 6950 is the performance winner across every measured compute metric, while the FirePro M4000 is the efficiency and compatibility winner for mobile or API-constrained environments. The choice between them depends entirely on whether the deployment can accommodate a 200 W dual-slot desktop card or requires a 33 W MXM module.