AMD FirePro M4000 vs AMD Radeon R7 M365X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available between these two mobile graphics processors is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that test, the AMD Radeon R7 M365X scores 5939, while the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537. The delta of -6.8% is expressed from the perspective of the FirePro M4000, meaning the R7 M365X is 6.8% faster in this particular workload. The R7 M365X therefore claims the sole head-to-head victory, with winsA at 0 and winsB at 1.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the FirePro M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5537, while the R7 M365X has an average of 5416. This is a notable inversion: the R7 M365X wins the single head-to-head OpenCL test, but its average across all available benchmarks is lower. This discrepancy suggests that the R7 M365X performs relatively better in OpenCL specifically, while its Vulkan result of 4893 pulls down its overall average. The Vulkan score is not directly comparable to the FirePro M4000, as the latter has no Vulkan benchmark entry in the data.

The FirePro M4000's nearest rivals in the benchmark database include the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508 (0.5% slower), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5501 (0.7% slower), and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 (1% slower). The NVIDIA Quadro M500M sits slightly ahead at 5604, which is 1.2% faster than the FirePro M4000. These tight margins place the FirePro M4000 in a crowded performance band where differences of less than 2% separate it from several competing mobile GPUs.

For the R7 M365X, its nearest rivals show a similar clustering. The AMD Radeon 610M scores 5444, which is 0.5% faster than the R7 M365X. The Intel UHD Graphics P630 scores 5370, which is 0.9% slower. The NVIDIA Quadro M4000 scores 5467, 0.9% faster, and the AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358, 1.1% slower. Both GPUs sit at the 32nd percentile among all GPUs in the database, indicating they occupy nearly identical positions in the overall performance distribution.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X demonstrates its clearest advantage in OpenCL compute workloads. Its score of 5939 in Geekbench OpenCL is 6.8% higher than the FirePro M4000's 5537. This margin is meaningful in the context of the tight rival clustering around both cards. The R7 M365X also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 4893, though without a direct counterpart for the FirePro M4000, it is impossible to determine which card handles Vulkan better. The presence of this Vulkan result suggests the R7 M365X has been tested in a broader range of modern API scenarios.

The AMD FirePro M4000, despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test, shows a higher average benchmark score of 5537 compared to the R7 M365X's 5416. This indicates that across all benchmark submissions in the database, the FirePro M4000 tends to perform more consistently or appears in workloads where it fares better. The FirePro M4000's nearest rival comparisons show it is within 1.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, which is a professional-grade mobile GPU. This proximity suggests the FirePro M4000 holds its own in professional or workstation-oriented contexts, even if it trails the R7 M365X in pure OpenCL throughput.

The R7 M365X, by contrast, is positioned against a mix of consumer and professional parts. Its delta of -0.5% against the AMD Radeon 610M and -0.9% against the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 shows it is competitive in both consumer and professional tiers. The R7 M365X also outperforms the Intel UHD Graphics P630 by 0.9%, which is an integrated graphics solution, reinforcing that the R7 M365X offers a step up from typical integrated offerings.

From a compute resource perspective, the FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The R7 M365X has fewer: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. Despite this hardware deficit, the R7 M365X achieves a higher OpenCL score, which points to differences in clock behavior or driver optimizations that are not fully captured in the specification sheet. The FirePro M4000's pixel rate is 10.80 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 21.60 GTexel/s. The R7 M365X's pixel rate is 6.600 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 19.80 GTexel/s. The FirePro M4000 leads in both rasterization and texturing throughput, but the R7 M365X still manages to win the compute-oriented OpenCL test.

The Verdict

Benchmark results indicate a split decision. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X is the faster card in the only direct head-to-head test, beating the FirePro M4000 by 6.8% in Geekbench OpenCL. This is a clear, if modest, victory in compute performance. However, the FirePro M4000 counters with a higher average benchmark score of 5537 versus 5416, suggesting that outside of the single OpenCL test, the FirePro M4000 tends to perform better across the broader set of benchmark submissions.

For users prioritizing OpenCL compute tasks, the R7 M365X is the safer choice. Its score of 5939 places it comfortably ahead of the FirePro M4000 and also ahead of several of its own nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon 610M (5444) and the Intel UHD Graphics P630 (5370). The R7 M365X also benefits from having a Vulkan benchmark result, giving it a tested advantage in that API, even if no direct comparison is possible.

For users who value overall consistency, the FirePro M4000's higher average score is notable. It sits just 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, a professional mobile GPU, and 0.5% behind the GeForce MX130. The FirePro M4000's nearest rival deltas are all within 1.2%, meaning it is extremely competitive within its immediate performance class. Its higher shading unit count (512 vs 384), TMU count (32 vs 24), and ROP count (16 vs 8) provide a theoretical advantage in graphics-heavy workloads that may not be fully reflected in the OpenCL score.

The data does not support a universal recommendation. The R7 M365X wins where it matters most for compute, but the FirePro M4000's higher average and superior rasterization hardware make it a more balanced performer. The R7 M365X is the pick for OpenCL-heavy applications. The FirePro M4000 is the pick for general-purpose use where its higher average score and stronger theoretical pixel throughput may yield better results in graphics-bound tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X scores 5939, which is 6.8% higher than the AMD FirePro M4000's 5537.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5537, while the AMD Radeon R7 M365X has an average of 5416.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

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

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, while the AMD Radeon R7 M365X has 384 shading units.

Q: What is the memory configuration of both GPUs?

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

Q: How do the two GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The FirePro M4000 is 0.5% faster than the GeForce MX130 and 1% faster than the Radeon R7 M440, but 1.2% slower than the Quadro M500M. The R7 M365X is 0.9% faster than the Intel UHD Graphics P630 and 1.1% faster than the Radeon R7 M445, but 0.5% slower than the Radeon 610M and 0.9% slower than the Quadro M4000.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on AMD's Graphics Core Next (GCN) 1.0 architecture and are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process. The FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip, while the R7 M365X uses the Litho chip. The FirePro M4000 has a transistor count of 1,500 million on a die size of 123 mm², resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The R7 M365X has 950 million transistors on a die size of 77 mm², giving it a slightly higher transistor density of 12.3M per mm².

The FirePro M4000 belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx000) generation, while the R7 M365X belongs to the Gem System (R7 M300) generation. The FirePro M4000's predecessor is FirePro Mobility, and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. The R7 M365X's predecessor is Solar System, and its successor is Polaris Mobile. The FirePro M4000 was released on 2012-06-26, and the R7 M365X was released on 2015-05-04. Both are end-of-life products.

The bus interface differs: the FirePro M4000 uses MXM-A (3.0), while the R7 M365X uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The FirePro M4000 has a TDP of 33 W and is an MXM Module with no power connectors. The R7 M365X has no listed TDP, slot width, or power connector information. The FirePro M4000 also lists its display outputs as "Portable Device Dependent," while the R7 M365X has no display output data.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specifications. The FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the R7 M365X has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro M4000 achieves a pixel rate of 10.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s, compared to the R7 M365X's 6.600 GPixel/s and 19.80 GTexel/s. The FirePro M4000's FP32 performance is 691.2 GFLOPS, while the R7 M365X's is 633.6 GFLOPS.

Both GPUs share identical memory specifications: 1024 MB of GDDR5, 128-bit bus, 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, and 1000 MHz memory clock (4 Gbps effective). They also share the same API support: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The transistor count and die size differ as noted above. The FirePro M4000 has a TDP of 33 W and uses an MXM-A (3.0) bus interface, while the R7 M365X has no TDP listed and uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The FirePro M4000 also lists display outputs as "Portable Device Dependent," while the R7 M365X has no display output information.