AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260X Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a close contest between two aging mobile GPUs, with the AMD Radeon R7 M260X taking a narrow lead in the single available head-to-head test. In Geekbench OpenCL, the R7 M260X scores 5690 against the FirePro M4000’s 5537, a delta of -2.7% from the FirePro’s perspective, meaning the R7 M260X is roughly 2.7% faster in this workload. However, the FirePro M4000 holds a stronger overall position when considering its percentile ranking: it sits at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs, while the R7 M260X sits at the 30th percentile. This discrepancy arises because the FirePro’s average benchmark score (5537) is based on its single OpenCL result, whereas the R7 M260X’s average (5161) is dragged down by its additional Vulkan score of 4631, which is significantly lower than its OpenCL score.

For buyers choosing between these two, the data suggests a split decision. If the priority is raw compute performance in OpenCL-based applications, the R7 M260X edges ahead by a small margin. But if the priority is consistency across different API workloads and a slightly better standing relative to the entire GPU landscape, the FirePro M4000 looks more balanced. The FirePro’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, +0.5%), NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, +0.7%), and AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, +1%), all of which it slightly outperforms, while it trails the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604, -1.2%). The R7 M260X, by contrast, sits close to the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154, +0.1%), NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211, -1%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M (5236, -1.4%), while leading the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063, +1.9%) by nearly 2%.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on AMD’s Graphics Core Next (GCN) 1.0 architecture, fabricated on the same 28 nm process at TSMC. This common foundation means they share the same fundamental instruction set and feature support, including DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. However, the underlying silicon is quite different in scale. The FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip, which packs 1,500 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The R7 M260X uses the smaller Opal chip, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a slightly higher density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. This means the FirePro’s Chelsea is a substantially larger and more complex piece of silicon, despite both being 28 nm parts.

The compute resources differ accordingly. The FirePro M4000 fields 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). The R7 M260X is trimmed down to 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. This is a significant reduction in parallel processing capability, particularly in pixel throughput, where the FirePro’s 16 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 10.80 GPixel/s versus the R7 M260X’s 5.720 GPixel/s — nearly double. Texture rate also favors the FirePro: 21.60 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s for the R7 M260X. Floating-point performance (FP32) follows the same pattern, with the FirePro delivering 691.2 GFLOPS against the R7 M260X’s 549.1 GFLOPS.

The memory subsystems are identical on paper: both use 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. Clock speeds differ, however. The FirePro M4000 lists no base or boost clock in the data, while the R7 M260X has a base clock of 620 MHz and a boost clock of 715 MHz. This clock advantage partially compensates for the R7 M260X’s smaller compute core, but not enough to overcome the FirePro’s raw resource advantage in pixel and texture throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690, while the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537. The delta is -2.7% from the FirePro’s perspective, meaning the R7 M260X is about 2.7% ahead. This is a modest margin — well within the noise of typical real-world variation, but it is the only direct comparison the data provides. The R7 M260X also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4631, but the FirePro M4000 has no corresponding Vulkan result, so no direct comparison is possible in that API.

When placed in the context of their nearest rivals, the two GPUs occupy different performance tiers. The FirePro M4000’s OpenCL score of 5537 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce MX130’s 5508 (+0.5%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M’s 5501 (+0.7%), and it is 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483). It trails only the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604) by 1.2%. The R7 M260X’s OpenCL score of 5690 is higher than any of its listed rivals; the closest is the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5211, which the R7 M260X beats by roughly 9.2%. However, the R7 M260X’s average benchmark score — which includes the Vulkan result — is 5161, placing it just 0.1% above the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154) and 1.9% above the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063).

The data suggests a nuanced picture: in pure OpenCL compute, the R7 M260X is the faster part, but its Vulkan performance (4631) is notably weaker, pulling its overall average down. The FirePro M4000, with a single OpenCL score, appears more consistent but does not reach the R7 M260X’s peak.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across several key specification fields. The most striking difference is in the chip and die: the FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip with 1,500 million transistors and a 123 mm² die, while the R7 M260X uses the Opal chip with 950 million transistors and a 77 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical (12.2M vs 12.3M per mm²), reflecting the same process node.

Compute resources differ as noted: the FirePro has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the R7 M260X has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This yields substantial differences in pixel rate (10.80 vs 5.720 GPixel/s), texture rate (21.60 vs 17.16 GTexel/s), and FP32 throughput (691.2 vs 549.1 GFLOPS). Clock speeds are only listed for the R7 M260X (base 620 MHz, boost 715 MHz); the FirePro M4000’s clocks are not provided in the data. Memory is identical: 1024 MB GDDR5, 128-bit bus, 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

The bus interface differs: the FirePro M4000 uses MXM-A (3.0), a modular mobile form factor, while the R7 M260X uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The FirePro also specifies a slot width of MXM Module and a TDP of 33 W, while the R7 M260X lists neither a slot width nor a TDP. Both use no power connectors and have display outputs marked as Portable Device Dependent. The FirePro M4000 was released on 2012-06-26, while the R7 M260X came later on 2015-12-05, and each has a different generation label: FirePro Mobile (Mx000) versus Gem System (R7 M200). The FirePro’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile; the R7 M260X’s predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile. Both are marked end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690, which is 2.7% higher than the FirePro M4000’s 5537.

Q: Does the FirePro M4000 have more compute units than the R7 M260X?

A: Yes. The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, versus the R7 M260X’s 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Q: What is the transistor count difference between the two chips?

A: The FirePro’s Chelsea chip has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the R7 M260X’s Opal chip has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Q: How does the R7 M260X compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M?

A: The R7 M260X has an average benchmark score of 5161, which is 0.1% higher than the Quadro K3100M’s 5154.

Q: Is the memory configuration the same on both GPUs?

A: Yes. Both use 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth and 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) memory clock.

Q: Which GPU has a better standing relative to all GPUs?

A: The FirePro M4000 ranks at the 32nd percentile, while the R7 M260X ranks at the 30th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins decisively in raw processing throughput. Its 16 ROPs deliver a pixel rate of 10.80 GPixel/s, which is 89% higher than the R7 M260X’s 5.720 GPixel/s. This is a major advantage for any workload that involves heavy rasterization, such as traditional 3D rendering or display composition. Its texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s is 26% higher than the R7 M260X’s 17.16 GTexel/s, giving it an edge in texture-heavy scenes. FP32 compute is also in the FirePro’s favor: 691.2 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS, a 26% advantage. The FirePro also has a higher transistor count (1,500 vs 950 million) and a larger die (123 vs 77 mm²), which historically correlates with more robust sustained performance in professional workloads. Its MXM-A (3.0) bus interface suggests it was designed for modular mobile workstations, and its 33 W TDP is explicitly listed, indicating a managed power envelope.

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins the only direct benchmark comparison available. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5690 beats the FirePro M4000’s 5537 by 2.7%. It also has a higher base clock (620 MHz) and boost clock (715 MHz) than the FirePro, whose clocks are not listed. In terms of its nearest rivals, the R7 M260X stands out more clearly: it beats the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211) by about 9.2% and the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063) by 1.9%. The R7 M260X also supports Vulkan, with a score of 4631, whereas the FirePro M4000 has no Vulkan result in the data. Its PCIe 3.0 x8 interface is a more conventional connection than the FirePro’s MXM-A, potentially making it easier to integrate into standard laptop designs.

For use-case splitting, the data points to this: if a workload is dominated by OpenCL compute — for example, GPU-accelerated analytics or certain rendering tasks — the R7 M260X is the better choice by a small but measurable margin. If a workload is more balanced across pixel and texture operations, or if consistent performance across multiple APIs matters, the FirePro M4000’s higher ROP count and superior pixel/texture rates make it the more capable part. The FirePro’s higher percentile ranking (32nd vs 30th) also suggests it is closer to the performance of the broader GPU population than the R7 M260X, despite the latter’s higher peak OpenCL score. In short, the R7 M260X is the compute-oriented pick, while the FirePro M4000 is the rasterization-oriented pick.