AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD Radeon HD 8750M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it favors the AMD Radeon HD 8750M. The HD 8750M scores 5970, while the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537. That is a 7.8% advantage for the HD 8750M, a meaningful lead in a compute-oriented workload where both cards are based on the same GCN 1.0 architecture.

To contextualize the HD 8750M's score, the database places it at the 34th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 scores 5982 (0.2% higher), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M scores 5986 (0.3% higher), the NVIDIA Quadro K620M scores 5957 (0.2% lower), and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M scores 5955 (0.3% lower). The HD 8750M effectively trades blows with this group, and its 5970 result sits almost exactly in the middle of that pack. The narrow deltas, all within 0.3%, indicate that the HD 8750M is not an outlier; it performs at parity with these contemporary mobile workstation and entry-level discrete options.

The FirePro M4000, meanwhile, sits at the 32nd percentile, slightly lower than the HD 8750M. Its nearest rivals are also closely grouped, but the FirePro trails them. The NVIDIA GeForce MX130 scores 5508 (0.5% higher), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M scores 5501 (0.7% higher), and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 scores 5483 (1% higher). The only rival it beats in this set is the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, which scores 5604, meaning the FirePro M4000 is 1.2% behind that card. So while the FirePro M4000's raw score of 5537 is respectable, it is the low end of its own comparison group, while the HD 8750M is near the top of its group.

Looking at the head-to-head delta alone, the HD 8750M wins the only benchmark where both cards have recorded data. The FirePro M4000 has no wins in this comparison. The margin of 7.8% is not enormous, but it is consistent across the compute task measured. The HD 8750M also holds a higher percentile ranking (34 vs. 32), reinforcing that its performance ceiling is slightly higher in the database's overall distribution.

One nuance worth noting: the HD 8750M's 5970 score is higher than its closest rival average (the Quadro K4000 at 5982 is only 0.2% above it), meaning the HD 8750M is effectively at parity with a professional workstation card from NVIDIA in this particular OpenCL test. The FirePro M4000, by contrast, is 1.2% below the Quadro M500M, its nearest rival in the database, suggesting it is slightly less competitive within its own segment.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD Radeon HD 8750M is the faster card. It wins the only available head-to-head benchmark by 7.8%, and its percentile rank is two points higher (34 vs. 32). For anyone choosing between these two based solely on performance measurements, the HD 8750M is the clear pick.

The FirePro M4000, however, is not without justification. Its TDP is listed at 33 W, whereas the HD 8750M has no TDP figure recorded in the database, so the FirePro's power draw is a documented advantage. Additionally, the FirePro M4000 uses GDDR5 memory with a 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, more than double the HD 8750M's 28.80 GB/s. The HD 8750M compensates with a higher OpenCL score, but the FirePro's memory subsystem is objectively superior on paper.

Who should pick the HD 8750M? Anyone prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL workloads. The 7.8% lead in the benchmark, plus its higher standing among all GPUs, makes it the better choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks.

Who should pick the FirePro M4000? Users who value power efficiency and memory bandwidth. The documented 33 W TDP is rare in this class, and the GDDR5 memory at 64.00 GB/s is a substantial upgrade over the HD 8750M's DDR3. For tasks that are memory-bandwidth-bound rather than compute-bound, the FirePro M4000 may hold an edge, even though the database's single benchmark does not show it.

The verdict is straightforward: the HD 8750M wins the measured performance comparison, but the FirePro M4000 offers specific advantages in power and memory that are not captured by the OpenCL score.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 1.0 architecture, so the fundamental instruction set and compute capabilities are identical. The API support confirms this: both list DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. There are no differences in feature-level support between the two cards.

The silicon, however, is different. The HD 8750M uses the Mars chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip, also on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The process node is the same, but the die is not. The FirePro's Chelsea chip contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the HD 8750M's Mars chip has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical (12.3M / mm² for Mars, 12.2M / mm² for Chelsea), which makes sense given the shared process node.

The larger Chelsea die gives the FirePro M4000 more execution resources. It has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The HD 8750M, with its smaller Mars die, has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. That is a 33% advantage in shading units and TMUs for the FirePro, and a 100% advantage in ROPs. Yet the HD 8750M still wins the OpenCL benchmark, which suggests that clock speeds and memory behavior play a significant role in real-world compute performance.

The FirePro M4000 has no base or boost clock recorded in the database, while the HD 8750M runs at 775 MHz base and 825 MHz boost. The FirePro's memory clock is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), whereas the HD 8750M's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The FirePro's higher memory clock, combined with GDDR5 versus DDR3, explains its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s.

The generation names reflect different market positioning. The HD 8750M belongs to the "Solar System (HD 8700M)" generation, while the FirePro M4000 belongs to "FirePro Mobile (Mx000)". Both are end-of-life products. The HD 8750M's predecessor is London and its successor is Gem System; the FirePro M4000's predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every specification that the database records, despite sharing the same architecture and process node.

The HD 8750M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The FirePro has more of each, with the ROP count doubling.

Memory is another clear split. The HD 8750M uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s. The FirePro M4000 also has 1024 MB, but it is GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The FirePro's bandwidth is more than double.

Clock speeds are partially documented. The HD 8750M has a base clock of 775 MHz and a boost clock of 825 MHz. The FirePro M4000 has no base or boost clock recorded. The HD 8750M's memory runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective); the FirePro's memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Pixel and texture rates follow the resource counts. The HD 8750M achieves 6.600 GPixel/s and 19.80 GTexel/s. The FirePro M4000 achieves 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s. The FirePro leads in both, with a particularly large gap in pixel throughput.

FP32 performance is closer than the resource counts suggest. The HD 8750M delivers 633.6 GFLOPS, while the FirePro M4000 delivers 691.2 GFLOPS. The FirePro leads by about 9%, but the HD 8750M still wins the OpenCL benchmark, indicating that the benchmark is not purely a measure of peak FP32 throughput.

Power and form factor are documented only for the FirePro. It has a TDP of 33 W, uses an MXM Module slot width, has no power connectors, and connects via MXM-A (3.0). Its display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent." The HD 8750M has no TDP, slot width, power connector, or display output data in the database, and its bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8.

Release dates differ: the HD 8750M was released on 2013-02-25, and the FirePro M4000 on 2012-06-26. The HD 8750M is the newer product by roughly eight months. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8750M scores 5970 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537. The HD 8750M leads by 7.8%.

Q: Does the FirePro M4000 have any performance advantage over the HD 8750M?

A: The FirePro M4000 has higher memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs. 28.80 GB/s), more shading units (512 vs. 384), more ROPs (16 vs. 8), and higher FP32 throughput (691.2 GFLOPS vs. 633.6 GFLOPS). However, none of these advantages translate into a win in the recorded OpenCL benchmark.

Q: Are both cards based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use GCN 1.0 architecture and are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. They also share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How do these cards compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The HD 8750M is within 0.3% of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000, Quadro K4000M, Quadro K620M, and AMD Radeon HD 8730M. The FirePro M4000 trails the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (0.5%), GeForce GTX 765M (0.7%), and AMD Radeon R7 M440 (1%), and is 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M500M.

Q: Which card has better memory?

A: The FirePro M4000. It uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The HD 8750M uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on the same bus width but only achieves 28.80 GB/s.

Q: Which card is more power-efficient?

A: The database only records a TDP for the FirePro M4000 at 33 W. No TDP is listed for the HD 8750M, so a direct comparison cannot be made, but the FirePro's 33 W figure is documented.

Where Each One Wins

The HD 8750M wins in raw OpenCL compute. Its 5970 score beats the FirePro M4000's 5537 by 7.8%, and its 34th percentile ranking among all GPUs is two points higher. For any workload that relies on general compute performance, the HD 8750M is the safer choice.

The FirePro M4000 wins in memory bandwidth. Its 64.00 GB/s is more than double the HD 8750M's 28.80 GB/s. If a task is limited by how fast data can move to and from the GPU, the FirePro's GDDR5 memory gives it a structural advantage that the OpenCL benchmark does not capture.

The FirePro M4000 also wins on power draw documentation. At 33 W, it is a known quantity for mobile workstation integration. The HD 8750M has no TDP listed, which is a gap for anyone planning a power-constrained build.

The HD 8750M wins on pixel and texture rates? No. The FirePro M4000 leads in pixel rate (10.80 GPixel/s vs. 6.600 GPixel/s) and texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s vs. 19.80 GTexel/s). The FirePro also has more TMUs (32 vs. 24) and ROPs (16 vs. 8). So for fill-rate-bound workloads, the FirePro is the better card on paper.

The HD 8750M wins on clock speed documentation. It has a base clock of 775 MHz and a boost of 825 MHz. The FirePro M4000 has no base or boost clock recorded, making its frequency behavior opaque.

In practical terms: pick the HD 8750M for compute tasks and general performance, as the benchmark data supports it. Pick the FirePro M4000 if you need the higher memory bandwidth, the documented 33 W power envelope, or the MXM module form factor. The HD 8750M is the faster card in the only measured test, but the FirePro M4000 offers specific hardware advantages that matter in memory-intensive or power-sensitive scenarios.