AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD Radeon HD 8790M Comparison

The AMD Radeon HD 8790M and AMD FirePro M4000 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm TSMC process, but they target different segments of the laptop market. The data shows a clear, if narrow, performance edge for the FirePro M4000 in the single available benchmark, yet the underlying specifications reveal a more nuanced story that favors each card in different contexts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisively in favor of the AMD FirePro M4000. The FirePro scores 5537 points, while the Radeon HD 8790M manages 5017 points. This represents a 9.4% advantage for the FirePro M4000, which is a meaningful gap in synthetic compute workloads. In practical terms, this means the FirePro M4000 is roughly 10% faster in OpenCL compute tasks, a category that includes GPU-accelerated rendering, video encoding, and scientific calculations.

However, the wider benchmark context shows that both cards are closely matched against their respective peers. The Radeon HD 8790M’s average benchmark score of 5691 places it just 0.4% behind the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300 and 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX, while it sits 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M500M. The FirePro M4000’s average score of 5537 puts it 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and 0.7% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, while it trails the Quadro M500M by 1.2%. Both chips occupy the same performance tier, with the FirePro’s OpenCL win being the only head-to-head data point separating them.

The Radeon HD 8790M also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6365, a test the FirePro M4000 does not appear in. While this cannot be directly compared, it indicates that the Radeon has been validated in modern graphics API workloads, which may matter for users running Vulkan-based games or applications. The FirePro M4000’s absence from that test list does not necessarily mean it lacks Vulkan support—its API list includes Vulkan 1.2.170—but the data cannot confirm its Vulkan performance.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 1.0 architecture, use a 28 nm process at TSMC, and share the same 128-bit memory bus with GDDR5 memory running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The similarities end there, as the two chips are fundamentally different in scale and configuration.

The Radeon HD 8790M uses the Mars chip, which is a relatively small die at 77 mm² and houses 950 million transistors. This gives it a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The FirePro M4000, by contrast, uses the Chelsea chip, which is 123 mm² and packs 1,500 million transistors, for a slightly lower density of 12.2 million per mm². The FirePro’s larger die is not just a bigger chip; it directly translates to more compute resources. The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The Radeon HD 8790M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. That means the FirePro has 33% more shaders, 33% more TMUs, and double the ROPs.

Despite this hardware advantage, the FirePro M4000’s clocks are not listed in the data, while the Radeon HD 8790M runs at 850 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. The result is that both cards deliver identical FP32 performance at 691.2 GFLOPS and identical texture fill rates at 21.60 GTexel/s. The pixel rate tells a different story: the FirePro M4000 achieves 10.80 GPixel/s, exactly 50% higher than the Radeon’s 7.200 GPixel/s, thanks to its doubled ROP count. This suggests the FirePro has a significant edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as high-resolution rendering with heavy overdraw.

Memory configurations also diverge. The Radeon HD 8790M comes with 2 GB of GDDR5, while the FirePro M4000 has only 1 GB. Both use a 128-bit bus and deliver 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, so the Radeon’s advantage is purely capacity, not speed. For modern workloads that exceed 1 GB of VRAM usage, the Radeon has a clear practical benefit, while the FirePro may hit memory limits earlier. The FirePro M4000 also carries a 33 W TDP rating, whereas the Radeon HD 8790M has no TDP listed, making direct power comparisons impossible from the data.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear compute winner: the AMD FirePro M4000. Its 9.4% lead in OpenCL and its doubled ROP count make it the stronger choice for GPU-accelerated compute tasks and fill-rate-sensitive workloads. The identical FP32 performance and texture rate mean that neither card will outpace the other in pure shader-math throughput, but the FirePro’s extra ROPs give it a hardware advantage in pixel processing that the benchmark confirms.

However, the Radeon HD 8790M is not without merit. Its 2 GB memory capacity is double that of the FirePro M4000, which is a decisive factor for tasks that require large framebuffers or datasets that exceed 1 GB. The Radeon also has a Vulkan benchmark score, suggesting it has been tested and validated in that API, while the FirePro lacks such a data point. For users prioritizing memory capacity and modern API compatibility, the Radeon is the safer pick.

The overall percentiles are nearly identical: the Radeon HD 8790M sits at the 33rd percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M4000 is at the 32nd. This means both cards are in the same performance class relative to the entire GPU market, and the choice between them should be driven by workload specifics rather than a search for a clearly superior product. The FirePro M4000 wins the compute benchmark, but the Radeon HD 8790M offers double the VRAM and a Vulkan score, making it the more versatile option for mixed-use scenarios.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in several key specification fields. The chip is different: Mars for the Radeon HD 8790M versus Chelsea for the FirePro M4000. Transistor count jumps from 950 million in the Radeon to 1,500 million in the FirePro. Die size goes from 77 mm² to 123 mm². The Radeon has a base clock of 850 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz, while the FirePro has no listed clocks. Memory size differs, with 2 GB on the Radeon and 1 GB on the FirePro. Shading units are 384 versus 512, TMUs are 24 versus 32, and ROPs are 8 versus 16. Pixel rate is 7.200 GPixel/s on the Radeon versus 10.80 GPixel/s on the FirePro. The FirePro has a TDP of 33 W, while the Radeon has none listed. The generations differ: the Radeon is in the Solar System (HD 8700M) family, and the FirePro is in the FirePro Mobile (Mx000) family. Release dates also differ, with the Radeon launching on 2013-03-31 and the FirePro on 2012-06-26. The predecessors and successors are also different: the Radeon’s predecessor is London and successor is Gem System, while the FirePro’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility and successor is Radeon Pro Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 is faster, scoring 5537 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5017 for the Radeon HD 8790M, a 9.4% advantage.

Q: Do both cards have the same amount of memory?

A: No. The Radeon HD 8790M has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the FirePro M4000 has 1 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate difference?

A: The FirePro M4000 achieves 10.80 GPixel/s, which is 50% higher than the Radeon HD 8790M’s 7.200 GPixel/s, due to its 16 ROPs versus 8.

Q: Are the shading resources identical?

A: No. The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units and 32 TMUs, while the Radeon HD 8790M has 384 shading units and 24 TMUs. Despite this, both deliver the same FP32 performance of 691.2 GFLOPS and texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s.

Q: Do these GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: How do they compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Radeon HD 8790M is 1.6% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M500M and 0.4% behind the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300. The FirePro M4000 is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and 1.2% behind the Quadro M500M.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins in compute performance, as evidenced by its 9.4% lead in OpenCL. It also wins in pixel throughput, with a 10.80 GPixel/s rate versus 7.200 GPixel/s, making it the better choice for tasks that are fill-rate limited, such as high-resolution post-processing or rendering scenes with heavy alpha blending. Its 33 W TDP is a listed specification, which may be useful for system builders comparing power envelopes, though the Radeon has no comparable figure.

The AMD Radeon HD 8790M wins in memory capacity, offering 2 GB versus 1 GB. This is a decisive advantage for workloads that consume more than 1 GB of VRAM, such as large texture packs, high-resolution framebuffers, or data-heavy compute tasks that spill into VRAM. The Radeon also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6365, indicating it has been tested in that API, while the FirePro lacks any Vulkan benchmark data. For users who prioritize modern graphics API performance or need headroom for large datasets, the Radeon is the stronger option.

In terms of market positioning, both cards are at the bottom third of GPU performance, at the 33rd and 32nd percentiles respectively. Neither card is a performance leader, and the choice ultimately comes down to whether the user needs the FirePro’s compute and fill-rate edge or the Radeon’s memory capacity and Vulkan validation. For professional compute workloads, the FirePro M4000 is the data-backed pick. For general use with larger memory demands, the Radeon HD 8790M is the more practical choice.