AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD Radeon R6 M255DX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The AMD FirePro M4000 and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX sit very close in the database's performance rankings, yet they achieve that proximity through completely different means. The FirePro M4000 records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5537, placing it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon R6 M255DX posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4867, landing in the 28th percentile. On paper, the raw numbers suggest the FirePro holds a 13.8% advantage in its recorded benchmark, but the comparison is not apples-to-apples: one was tested under OpenCL, the other under Vulkan, so the scores reflect different workloads and driver paths.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card clarifies the picture. The FirePro M4000 sits in a tight cluster, with the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 averaging 5508 (a 0.5% delta) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M averaging 5501 (0.7% higher). The AMD Radeon R7 M440 trails at 5483, a 1% deficit relative to the FirePro. The only rival that beats it in this group is the NVIDIA Quadro M500M at 5604, a 1.2% margin. These are remarkably small separations, indicating that the FirePro M4000 is positioned in a performance band where a few points either way determine rank.

The Radeon R6 M255DX's rival set is similarly tight. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M scores 4855, a 0.2% gap, and the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX scores 4844, a 0.5% deficit. On the other side, the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 scores 4893, a 0.5% advantage, and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, a much newer and larger part, scores 4901, a 0.7% lead. The inclusion of the RTX 5060 Ti in this rival group is notable: despite the enormous generational and architectural differences, the R6 M255DX's Vulkan score lands within 1% of it.

The head-to-head benchmark matrix between the two cards is empty in the database, meaning there is no direct same-test comparison recorded. Each card's single benchmark entry belongs to a different API, so the only way to compare them is through their percentile placements and rival deltas. The FirePro M4000's 32nd percentile versus the R6 M255DX's 28th percentile is a four-point gap, which in percentile terms is meaningful, but both cards sit in the lower-middle range of the overall GPU distribution.

What stands out most in the data is how close both cards are to their respective rival clusters. The FirePro M4000 is within 1.2% of all four of its nearest rivals, and the R6 M255DX is within 0.7% of all four of its nearest rivals. Neither card dominates its peer group, but the FirePro's position near the 5500-point mark in OpenCL and the R6's position near the 4900-point mark in Vulkan show that each card has a defined performance envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro M4000 wins in raw compute throughput based on the recorded specifications. Its FP32 performance is 691.2 GFLOPS, compared to 547.2 GFLOPS for the Radeon R6 M255DX, a 26.3% advantage. The FirePro also has 512 shading units against 320, 32 texture mapping units against 20, and 16 ROPs against 8. Pixel rate is 10.80 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 21.60 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. These are the numbers that drive the FirePro's higher OpenCL score, and they suggest it is better suited to compute-heavy tasks where fill rate and shader throughput matter.

The Radeon R6 M255DX wins in memory flexibility. Its memory is listed as System Shared with a System Dependent bandwidth, meaning it draws from the host system's RAM rather than a dedicated pool. This is a hybrid design, identified in its generation as "Gem System Hybrid (Rx M200)", and the practical advantage is that the card does not carry a fixed memory capacity that can become obsolete. The FirePro M4000, by contrast, has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. Dedicated memory is typically faster and more predictable, but it also caps the card at 1 GB, which is restrictive for modern workloads.

In terms of clock behavior, the R6 M255DX has explicit base and boost clocks of 780 MHz and 855 MHz respectively, while the FirePro M4000 lists no base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). This means the R6 has a clearly defined dynamic clock range, whereas the FirePro's core clock behavior is undocumented in the database. The R6's boost of 855 MHz, when combined with its lower shader count, still cannot close the FP32 gap, but it does show that the hybrid part is designed to ramp under load.

The FirePro M4000 wins in the professional mobile segment. Its generation is "FirePro Mobile (Mx000)", its slot width is MXM Module, and its bus interface is MXM-A (3.0). This makes it a replaceable, serviceable GPU for mobile workstations, a category that prioritizes stability and certification. The R6 M255DX is an IGP, soldered or integrated into the system with an IGP bus interface, which means it cannot be upgraded or swapped. For a laptop buyer, the FirePro's MXM form factor is a structural advantage, though in practice most modern laptops do not offer MXM upgrades.

The Radeon R6 M255DX wins on release timing. It launched on 2014-01-06, while the FirePro M4000 launched on 2012-06-26. That is roughly 19 months of additional driver maturation and platform integration for the R6, though both are now marked as End-of-life in the database. The R6 also belongs to the Rx M200 generation, which is a consumer-oriented line, while the FirePro is part of AMD's professional FirePro series. Neither card is current, but the R6 is the more recent design.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 records a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5537, while the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4867. The FirePro is 13.8% higher, but the tests use different APIs, so direct comparison is not exact.

Q: How does the FirePro M4000 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The FirePro M4000 is within 1.2% of all four nearest rivals. It is 0.5% above the NVIDIA GeForce MX130, 0.7% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M, 1% above the AMD Radeon R7 M440, and 1.2% below the NVIDIA Quadro M500M.

Q: What is the memory situation for each card?

A: The FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R6 M255DX uses System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth, meaning it has no dedicated VRAM of its own.

Q: Are both cards based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use GCN 1.0 architecture and are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the R6 M255DX uses the Jet chip with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, compared to 320 on the Radeon R6 M255DX. The FirePro also has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, versus 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the R6.

Q: What API support do these cards offer?

A: Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. There is no difference in the recorded API feature set between the two.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every hardware specification. The FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip, while the Radeon R6 M255DX uses the Jet chip. Transistor count is 1,500 million for the FirePro versus 690 million for the R6, and die size is 123 mm² versus 56 mm². Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.2M per mm² for the FirePro and 12.3M per mm² for the R6.

Clocks differ significantly. The FirePro M4000 has no recorded base or boost clock, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The R6 M255DX has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz, with memory listed as System Shared. The FirePro's memory is 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth; the R6's memory is System Shared with System Dependent bandwidth.

Compute resources differ as well. The FirePro has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 10.80 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 691.2 GFLOPS. The R6 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, producing a pixel rate of 6.840 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 17.10 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 547.2 GFLOPS.

Power and form factor differ. The FirePro M4000 has a TDP of 33 W, uses an MXM Module slot width, has no power connectors, and connects via MXM-A (3.0). The R6 M255DX has no recorded TDP, uses an IGP slot width, has no recorded power connectors, and connects via IGP. Display outputs are identical: Portable Device Dependent for both.

Release dates differ substantially. The FirePro M4000 launched on 2012-06-26, while the R6 M255DX launched on 2014-01-06. The FirePro has a documented predecessor, FirePro Mobility, and successor, Radeon Pro Mobile, while the R6 has neither. Both are marked End-of-life in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 1.0 architecture, AMD's first-generation Graphics Core Next design, and both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The architectural foundation is therefore the same, but the implementations diverge sharply in scale and intent.

The FirePro M4000 is a discrete mobile workstation GPU. Its generation, FirePro Mobile (Mx000), indicates a professional product line, and its MXM Module slot width and MXM-A (3.0) bus interface confirm that it is a replaceable module. The Radeon R6 M255DX is an integrated hybrid part, classified under Gem System Hybrid (Rx M200), with an IGP slot width and IGP bus interface. It shares system memory and depends on the host platform for bandwidth, which the database records as System Dependent.

The chip-level differences are substantial. The FirePro's Chelsea die contains 1,500 million transistors spread over 123 mm², while the R6's Jet die contains 690 million transistors on 56 mm². The FirePro's larger die enables 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the R6 makes do with 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro has no RT cores or tensor cores listed, and neither does the R6, which is expected for GCN 1.0 parts that predate ray tracing and tensor hardware.

The FirePro's memory architecture is dedicated GDDR5, with 1024 MB on a 128-bit bus delivering 64.00 GB/s. The R6's memory is entirely System Shared, with no dedicated VRAM, no fixed bus width, and bandwidth that varies with the host system. This is the defining architectural difference between a discrete mobile GPU and a hybrid integrated part: the FirePro has guaranteed, dedicated memory bandwidth, while the R6 must compete with the CPU for system memory access.

Clock behavior also differs. The R6 M255DX explicitly lists a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz, showing that it has a defined dynamic range. The FirePro M4000 lists no base or boost clock at all, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed. This absence in the database suggests either that the FirePro's core clocks are locked or that they were not recorded during data collection.

Despite these architectural differences, both cards expose the same API feature set: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R6 M255DX's Vulkan score of 4867 is its only recorded benchmark, while the FirePro M4000's OpenCL score of 5537 is its only recorded benchmark. The architectural gap between a 123 mm² discrete part and a 56 mm² integrated part is clear in the spec sheet, but the benchmark results show that both land in the same low-to-mid performance tier. The FirePro's extra shading units and dedicated memory give it a measurable edge in raw throughput, while the R6's hybrid design offers system-level integration and a more recent release date.