AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 Comparison

AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 and AMD FirePro M4000 are both professional-grade AMD GPUs, but they are separated by nearly four and a half years of architectural evolution and market positioning. The WX 4100 is a desktop workstation card built on the modern Polaris architecture, while the FirePro M4000 is a mobile workstation module based on the older Graphics Core Next 1.0 design. The benchmark data reveals a massive performance gulf, with the WX 4100 delivering roughly 218.6% higher OpenCL performance than the M4000. This analysis compares the two based on recorded specifications and measurements from the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 has an average benchmark score of 6330, while the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537. This places the WX 4100 in the 37th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the M4000's 32nd percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in the only head-to-head benchmark available?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the WX 4100 scores 17642, which is 218.6% higher than the M4000's 5537. The WX 4100 wins the sole head-to-head comparison.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity and bandwidth?

A: The WX 4100 has 4 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 96.00 GB/s bandwidth. The M4000 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 memory with the same 128-bit bus but only 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are the GPUs based on the same architecture?

A: No. The WX 4100 uses GCN 4.0 architecture (chip: Baffin, 14 nm process), while the M4000 uses GCN 1.0 architecture (chip: Chelsea, 28 nm process).

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The WX 4100 contains 3,000 million transistors, exactly double the 1,500 million transistors in the M4000. Both have the same die size of 123 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 24.4M / mm² for the WX 4100 versus 12.2M / mm² for the M4000.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern graphics APIs?

A: The WX 4100 supports DirectX 12 (12_0) and Vulkan 1.3, while the M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two GPUs is substantial, reflecting a generational leap in AMD's design philosophy. The Radeon Pro WX 4100 is built on GCN 4.0 architecture, manufactured on a 14 nm process at GlobalFoundries. Its chip, codenamed Baffin, packs 3,000 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.4M per mm². In contrast, the FirePro M4000 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. Its Chelsea chip contains 1,500 million transistors in the same 123 mm² die area, resulting in a density of just 12.2M per mm². This means the WX 4100 crams twice the transistors into the same physical space.

The compute resources differ accordingly. The WX 4100 features 1024 shading units, 64 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). The M4000 has exactly half the shading units (512) and half the TMUs (32), while retaining the same 16 ROPs. This halving of compute resources directly impacts throughput rates. The WX 4100 achieves a pixel rate of 19.22 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 76.86 GTexel/s, while the M4000 manages only 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s respectively.

Clock speeds also favor the newer card. The WX 4100 has a base clock of 1125 MHz and a boost clock of 1201 MHz. The M4000 does not have recorded base or boost clock values in the database, but its memory clock runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) compared to the WX 4100's 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective). Floating-point performance tells the story: the WX 4100 delivers 2.460 TFLOPS FP32, while the M4000 provides 691.2 GFLOPS, a difference of roughly 3.6x. The WX 4100 also supports FP16 at 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1), a capability not listed for the M4000.

Power and form factor further distinguish them. The WX 4100 is a single-slot desktop card with a 50 W TDP, no external power connectors, a suggested PSU of 250 W, and PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The M4000 is an MXM Module (MXM-A 3.0) with a 33 W TDP, no power connectors, and no suggested PSU listed. The WX 4100 measures 168 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the M4000 has no recorded dimensions. Display outputs also differ: the WX 4100 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, while the M4000's outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent."

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct comparison between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this benchmark, the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 scores 17642, while the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537. This represents a delta of 218.6%, meaning the WX 4100 is more than three times faster in raw compute throughput as measured by OpenCL. This is the only head-to-head test recorded, and the WX 4100 wins it decisively. The M4000 has no other benchmark entries in the database, while the WX 4100 has a full suite of results including Geekbench Metal (21018), Vulkan (18703), and various Passmark tests.

Looking at the WX 4100's broader benchmark profile provides context. Its Passmark G3D score is 3699, its GPU Compute score is 1475, and its G2D score is 646. The DirectX tests show 56 in DirectX 9, 24 in DirectX 11, 22 in DirectX 12, and 16 in DirectX 10. The M4000 lacks these measurements, so no further direct comparison is possible. The WX 4100's average benchmark score of 6330 places it very close to its nearest rivals: it is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M350 (6327), 0.8% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K620 (6282), and 0.9% behind both the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460 SE and GTX 580M (both 6389). The M4000's average score of 5537 puts it 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508), 0.7% behind the GTX 765M (5501), 1% behind the Radeon R7 M440 (5483), and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604).

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification. The WX 4100 uses a 14 nm process node from GlobalFoundries, while the M4000 uses a 28 nm process from TSMC. Transistor counts are 3,000 million versus 1,500 million, though both share a 123 mm² die size. Memory capacity is 4 GB versus 1024 MB, both GDDR5, but with different effective speeds: 6 Gbps versus 4 Gbps, yielding bandwidths of 96.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s on the same 128-bit bus.

Compute units scale accordingly: shading units are 1024 versus 512, TMUs are 64 versus 32, and ROPs are equal at 16. Clock speeds show the WX 4100 with base 1125 MHz and boost 1201 MHz, while the M4000 has no recorded base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are 1500 MHz (6 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Pixel rates are 19.22 GPixel/s versus 10.80 GPixel/s, texture rates are 76.86 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance is 2.460 TFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. The WX 4100 also lists FP16 performance at 2.460 TFLOPS (1:1), which the M4000 does not specify.

Power consumption differs: 50 W TDP for the WX 4100 versus 33 W for the M4000. The WX 4100 is a single-slot desktop card with a 250 W suggested PSU, while the M4000 is an MXM Module with no suggested PSU. Bus interfaces are PCIe 3.0 x8 versus MXM-A (3.0). Display outputs are 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a versus "Portable Device Dependent." API support varies: DirectX 12 (12_0) versus 12 (11_1), and Vulkan 1.3 versus 1.2.170. Physical dimensions exist only for the WX 4100: 168 mm length, 69 mm height. The WX 4100 was released on 2016-11-09, while the M4000 came out on 2012-06-26.

The Verdict

The data paints an unambiguous picture: the AMD Radeon Pro WX 4100 is the superior performer by a wide margin. In the only shared benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, it delivers 218.6% higher performance than the FirePro M4000. Its average benchmark score of 6330 is 14.3% higher than the M4000's 5537, and its percentile ranking (37th versus 32nd) reflects a higher standing among all GPUs. For any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, the WX 4100 is the clear choice.

The architectural advantages are decisive. The WX 4100's GCN 4.0 architecture on 14 nm doubles the transistor count, quadruples the FP32 throughput (2.460 TFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS), and provides 3.6x the texture rate. Its 4 GB memory capacity with 96.00 GB/s bandwidth offers 4x the capacity and 1.5x the bandwidth of the M4000's 1 GB and 64.00 GB/s. The WX 4100 also supports newer API versions, including Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12_0, making it more future-proof for modern applications.

However, the M4000 has its niche. With a 33 W TDP versus 50 W, it draws less power, which is critical for mobile workstation implementations. Its MXM form factor is designed for laptops and compact systems, whereas the WX 4100 is a desktop card. For users with a portable device that requires the MXM-A interface, the M4000 is the only option in this comparison. Its 512 shading units and 691.2 GFLOPS are sufficient for basic professional visualization tasks, though the data shows it trails significantly in raw compute.

The production status of both is "End-of-life," so neither is a current-generation purchase. The WX 4100 had a launch MSRP of 399 USD, while the M4000 has no recorded launch price. Given the performance disparity, the WX 4100 is the logical pick for stationary workstations requiring higher throughput, larger memory, and broader API support. The M4000 remains relevant only where its mobile MXM form factor and lower power draw are mandatory constraints. Benchmark results indicate no scenario where the M4000 outperforms the WX 4100 in compute tasks; the decision rests entirely on form factor and power requirements.