AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD Radeon R7 M265 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the recorded OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 wins. It scores 5537 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD Radeon R7 M265 scores 4929, a 12.3% lead.

Q: How do these two compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The FirePro M4000 sits slightly ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, +0.5%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, +0.7%), and behind the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604, -1.2%). The Radeon R7 M265 is essentially tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931, 0% delta), ahead of the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904, +0.5%), and ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893, +0.7%).

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The Radeon R7 M265 has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Q: Do both GPUs share the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on AMD GCN 1.0 architecture and use a 28 nm process from TSMC. The FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip, while the R7 M265 uses the Opal chip.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size difference?

A: The FirePro M4000 packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the R7 M265 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical: 12.2M per mm² for the FirePro and 12.3M per mm² for the R7.

Q: Which card has more shaders, TMUs, and ROPs?

A: The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon R7 M265 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro leads in every category.

The Verdict

The data points clearly toward the AMD FirePro M4000 as the faster GPU in raw compute. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5537 beats the Radeon R7 M265's 4929 by 12.3%, and it wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded. The FirePro also holds a higher percentile ranking, sitting at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, versus the R7 M265's 29th percentile.

That said, the Radeon R7 M265 is not without its own appeal. It offers twice the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1024 MB), though with DDR3 instead of GDDR5, resulting in less than half the bandwidth (28.80 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s). For workloads that are capacity-sensitive rather than bandwidth-sensitive, the extra gigabyte could matter. But for compute performance, the FirePro M4000 is the choice.

Users who prioritize shader throughput, texture fill, and pixel fill should pick the FirePro M4000. It delivers 691.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, 21.60 GTexel/s, and 10.80 GPixel/s. The R7 M265 counters with 633.6 GFLOPS, 19.80 GTexel/s, and 6.600 GPixel/s. The FirePro wins every throughput metric.

The Radeon R7 M265 has a clear advantage in memory capacity and a more conventional PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, whereas the FirePro uses an MXM-A (3.0) module interface. For a laptop upgrade path or a system designed around MXM modules, the FirePro fits; for a standard PCIe slot, the R7 M265 is the practical option.

Both GPUs are end-of-life products, so the decision rests on what the host system supports and what the workload demands. Compute performance says FirePro M4000. Memory capacity says Radeon R7 M265. Given the benchmark data, the FirePro M4000 is the stronger performer overall.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one head-to-head test: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537, and the AMD Radeon R7 M265 scores 4929. That is a 12.3% difference in favor of the FirePro. In raw numbers, the FirePro leads by 608 points.

Contextualizing this score against the nearest rivals in the database makes the result more meaningful. The FirePro M4000's 5537 places it just above the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, +0.5%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, +0.7%). It trails the NVIDIA Quadro M500M (5604) by 1.2%, a margin small enough to be considered competitive. The Radeon R7 M265's 4929 is effectively a tie with the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931, 0% delta), and it edges out the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904, +0.5%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893, +0.7%).

The FirePro M4000's closest rival in the database is the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, which outscores it by 1.2%. Its most direct competitor below it is the GeForce MX130, which it beats by only 0.5%. This means the FirePro sits in a tight cluster of GPUs scoring between roughly 5500 and 5600. The Radeon R7 M265, by contrast, anchors a lower cluster around 4900, where the R7 M360 is its near-exact match.

The 12.3% gap between the two cards is larger than the gap between the FirePro and any of its listed rivals except the Quadro M500M. In other words, the difference between these two AMD GPUs is more significant than the difference between the FirePro and its nearest competitors. The benchmark result is decisive: the FirePro M4000 is the faster card in OpenCL compute workloads.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on nearly every specification except architecture, process node, foundry, and API support. Both use GCN 1.0, 28 nm TSMC, and support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. From there, the differences are substantial.

The chip designs differ: the FirePro M4000 uses Chelsea, and the R7 M265 uses Opal. Transistor counts are 1,500 million versus 950 million, and die sizes are 123 mm² versus 77 mm². Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.2M per mm² and 12.3M per mm², respectively.

Memory configurations are starkly different. The FirePro M4000 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R7 M265 has 2 GB of DDR3, also on a 128-bit bus, but with only 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. Memory clocks are 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the FirePro and 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the R7.

Compute resources favor the FirePro. It has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the R7 M265 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 10.80 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 21.60 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 691.2 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS.

Clock behavior also differs. The R7 M265 has a base clock of 725 MHz and a boost clock of 825 MHz. The FirePro M4000 has no base or boost clock listed in the database. The R7 also has a defined TDP of 33 W, while the FirePro has no TDP recorded.

The bus interface and form factor differ. The FirePro uses MXM-A (3.0) and an MXM Module slot width, while the R7 M265 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The FirePro has no power connectors listed, and its display outputs are listed as portable device dependent. The R7 M265 has no display output data in the database. Release dates are also different: the FirePro launched on 2012-06-26, and the R7 M265 on 2014-01-08.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the GCN 1.0 architecture and the 28 nm TSMC process, but their physical implementations diverge. The FirePro M4000's Chelsea chip contains 1,500 million transistors across a 123 mm² die. The Radeon R7 M265's Opal chip contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The smaller Opal chip achieves a slightly higher transistor density, 12.3M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm², but the Chelsea chip dedicates more silicon to compute resources.

The FirePro M4000 allocates its larger transistor budget to 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The R7 M265 halves the ROP count to 8, reduces TMUs to 24, and lowers shader count to 384. These resource differences directly explain the throughput gaps: the FirePro produces 691.2 GFLOPS of FP32, 21.60 GTexel/s, and 10.80 GPixel/s, while the R7 M265 produces 633.6 GFLOPS, 19.80 GTexel/s, and 6.600 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The FirePro pairs its GDDR5 memory with a 1000 MHz clock and achieves 64.00 GB/s. The R7 M265 uses DDR3 at 900 MHz and manages only 28.80 GB/s. Both use a 128-bit bus, so the bandwidth difference comes entirely from memory type and clock speed. The R7 M265 compensates with double the capacity: 2 GB versus 1024 MB.

The FirePro M4000 belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx000) generation and has a predecessor of FirePro Mobility and a successor of Radeon Pro Mobile. The R7 M265 belongs to the Gem System (R7 M200) generation, with a predecessor of Solar System and a successor of Polaris Mobile. These generational placements reflect different product lines: one aimed at professional mobile workstations, the other at mainstream consumer laptops.

The R7 M265 has explicit base and boost clocks (725 MHz and 825 MHz), while the FirePro M4000 has none recorded. The R7 also lists a 33 W TDP, while the FirePro does not. The interface difference is notable: the FirePro is an MXM module, while the R7 is a PCIe 3.0 x8 card. This affects which systems can accept each GPU.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins in compute-heavy workloads. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 5537 versus 4929 demonstrates a 12.3% advantage in general-purpose GPU compute. The shader count advantage, 512 versus 384, supports this lead in parallel workloads. FP32 throughput of 691.2 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS further confirms the FirePro's strength in floating-point operations.

The FirePro also wins in bandwidth-sensitive tasks. Its GDDR5 memory delivers 64.00 GB/s, more than double the R7 M265's 28.80 GB/s. Texture-heavy rendering favors the FirePro as well, with 21.60 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s. Pixel fill rate is decisively in the FirePro's favor: 10.80 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s, a 63.6% advantage. For rasterization and pixel-heavy effects, the FirePro is clearly superior.

The Radeon R7 M265 wins in capacity-sensitive scenarios. Its 2 GB memory buffer doubles the FirePro's 1024 MB. Workloads that need to hold larger textures or data sets in local memory will benefit from the extra capacity, even at the cost of bandwidth. The R7 M265 also has a conventional PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, making it more compatible with standard laptop motherboards than the FirePro's MXM-A (3.0) module format.

In the recorded benchmark, the FirePro M4000 wins the only head-to-head test. It also holds a higher percentile ranking, 32nd versus 29th among all GPUs. The R7 M265's nearest rivals include the R7 M360 at a 0% delta and the FirePro W5130M at +0.5%, meaning it is competitive within its own performance tier. The FirePro's rivals include the GeForce MX130 at +0.5% and the Quadro M500M at -1.2%, placing it in a slightly higher tier.

Power consumption data is incomplete for both cards, but the R7 M265 lists a 33 W TDP while the FirePro has no TDP recorded. Systems with strict thermal budgets may prefer the R7 M265 based on this figure, though the FirePro's absence of a recorded TDP prevents a direct comparison. The FirePro has no power connectors listed, while the R7 M265 has no power connector data either.

For professional mobile workstations, the FirePro M4000 is the stronger pick based on compute and bandwidth metrics. For mainstream laptops with PCIe slots and a need for more memory capacity, the R7 M265 has its place. The benchmark data, however, is unambiguous: the FirePro M4000 outperforms the R7 M265 by 12.3% in OpenCL compute, and it wins the only recorded head-to-head comparison.