AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M Comparison

AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M: the data shows a narrow but decisive win for the NVIDIA GeForce 840M, which takes the only head-to-head benchmark with a 3.9% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. The FirePro M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the 840M sits just behind at the 31st, yet the 840M’s 5,764 OpenCL score tops the FirePro’s 5,537. These are close products, but the architectural split—GCN 1.0 versus Maxwell—produces distinct strengths that matter more than the raw score gap.

The Verdict

Pick the NVIDIA GeForce 840M if you need the higher peak compute throughput and a more modern feature set. Its 863.2 GFLOPS FP32 output exceeds the FirePro M4000’s 691.2 GFLOPS by roughly 25%, and it wins the only direct comparison available. The 840M also carries a newer Vulkan API version (1.4 versus 1.2.170), a higher base clock of 1029 MHz versus a null base clock on the FirePro, and double the memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1 GB. For general OpenCL workloads, the data favors NVIDIA.

Pick the AMD FirePro M4000 if you value memory bandwidth and architectural balance over raw compute. The FirePro delivers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth—four times the 840M’s 16.02 GB/s—and uses GDDR5 memory instead of DDR3. It also has double the texture units (32 versus 16) and double the ROPs (16 versus 8), which translates to higher pixel and texture rates: 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s and 17.98 GTexel/s. In memory-bound scenarios, the FirePro’s advantage is substantial.

The verdict is not about which GPU is "better" in absolute terms—the 840M wins the benchmark, but the FirePro wins the memory-subsystem comparison. For OpenCL compute, take the 840M. For bandwidth-sensitive tasks, take the FirePro.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce 840M wins in:

• Compute throughput: 863.2 GFLOPS FP32 versus 691.2 GFLOPS on the FirePro M4000—a 24.9% advantage in raw math capability.
• OpenCL benchmark: 5,764 versus 5,537, a 3.9% lead in the sole head-to-head test.
• Memory capacity: 2 GB versus 1 GB, giving it more headroom for larger datasets.
• API support: Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170, and a higher base clock of 1029 MHz (the FirePro has no listed base clock).
• Shading units: 384 versus 512, but each Maxwell shader is clocked higher and more efficient per unit, resulting in higher FP32 overall.

AMD FirePro M4000 wins in:

• Memory bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s—a 4x advantage that dominates fill-rate-bound workloads.
• Texture and pixel rates: 21.60 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s, and 10.80 GPixel/s versus 8.992 GPixel/s.
• Texture mapping units and ROPs: 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs versus 16 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the 840M.
• Transistor count: 1,500 million versus 1,020 million, though on a larger die (123 mm² versus 77 mm²).

The wins are complementary. The 840M is compute-oriented; the FirePro is memory-oriented. Neither dominates the other across all metrics.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The AMD FirePro M4000 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process, with a die size of 123 mm² and 1,500 million transistors. Its transistor density is 12.2M / mm². The chip is codenamed Chelsea and belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx000) generation. It features 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, paired with 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The memory clock is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M uses the Maxwell architecture on the same 28 nm TSMC process, but with a smaller die: 77 mm² and 1,020 million transistors, giving a higher density of 13.2M / mm². The chip is GM108S from the GeForce 800M generation. It has 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, with 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. Its memory clock is 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective), producing just 16.02 GB/s bandwidth.

Key architectural differences:

• Shader count: FirePro has 512 shaders; 840M has 384, but 840M’s higher clocks (1029 MHz base, 1124 MHz boost) compensate.
• Memory type: GDDR5 versus DDR3—the FirePro’s memory is far faster per pin.
• Bus width: 128-bit versus 64-bit—the FirePro’s bus is twice as wide.
• Transistor density: 13.2M / mm² on 840M versus 12.2M / mm² on FirePro—Maxwell packs more logic per area.
• API support: The 840M supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 (11_0); the FirePro supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1). The FirePro has a slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0), but the 840M has a newer Vulkan version.

Both share a 33 W TDP, no power connectors, and the same OpenGL 4.6 support. They diverge in form factor: the FirePro uses an MXM Module slot with MXM-A (3.0) interface, while the 840M is an IGP with PCIe 3.0 x8 interface.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M. Its FP32 output is 863.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS on the AMD FirePro M4000, a 24.9% advantage. This aligns with its 3.9% lead in the OpenCL benchmark (5,764 versus 5,537).

Q: Why does the FirePro M4000 have better memory bandwidth despite being slower in compute?

A: The FirePro uses GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s. The 840M uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding only 16.02 GB/s. That’s a 4x bandwidth difference in the FirePro’s favor, independent of compute performance.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M has 384. However, the 840M’s higher clocks and per-shader efficiency result in higher overall FP32 throughput.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same generation?

A: No. The FirePro M4000 is from the FirePro Mobile (Mx000) generation, released in June 2012. The GeForce 840M is from the GeForce 800M generation, released in March 2014. The 840M is two years newer.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The FirePro M4000 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die; the 840M has 1,020 million on a 77 mm² die. The 840M achieves a higher transistor density (13.2M / mm² versus 12.2M / mm²).

Q: Which GPU has better API support?

A: It depends on the API. The 840M supports Vulkan 1.4, which is newer than the FirePro’s 1.2.170. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), a slightly higher feature level than the 840M’s DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the NVIDIA GeForce 840M wins decisively with a score of 5,764 against the AMD FirePro M4000’s 5,537. The deltaPct is -3.9% from the FirePro’s perspective, meaning the 840M is 3.9% faster. This is a modest but real gap, consistent with the 840M’s higher FP32 throughput (863.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS).

Breaking down the non-benchmark metrics reveals where each GPU builds its case:

• Compute: The 840M’s FP32 advantage (863.2 versus 691.2 GFLOPS) is the largest single-metric win, at 24.9%. This likely drives its OpenCL lead.
• Memory bandwidth: The FirePro’s 64.00 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s is a 299% advantage—the biggest margin in either direction, but it does not translate to a win in the OpenCL test.
• Pixel and texture rates: The FirePro leads in pixel rate (10.80 versus 8.992 GPixel/s, a 20.1% margin) and texture rate (21.60 versus 17.98 GTexel/s, a 20.1% margin). These are bandwidth-driven, so they align with the memory gap.
• Clocks: The 840M has a base clock of 1029 MHz and boost of 1124 MHz; the FirePro has no listed base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz. This clock advantage helps explain the 840M’s compute win despite fewer shaders.

The benchmark result favors the 840M, but the FirePro’s fill-rate metrics suggest it would win in texture-heavy or bandwidth-bound workloads—just not in the OpenCL compute test provided.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two GPUs:

| Specification | AMD FirePro M4000 | NVIDIA GeForce 840M |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Chelsea | GM108S |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |

| Generation | FirePro Mobile (Mx000) | GeForce 800M |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 77 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | null | 1029 MHz |

| Boost Clock | null | 1124 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps) | 1001 MHz (2 Gbps) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 16.02 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 384 |

| TMUs | 32 | 16 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.80 GPixel/s | 8.992 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 17.98 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 691.2 GFLOPS | 863.2 GFLOPS |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 3.0 x8 |

| Release Date | 2012-06-26 | 2014-03-11 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Mobility | GeForce 700M |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Mobile | GeForce 900M |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 5537 | 5322 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 32 | 31 |

The 840M is smaller, denser, and faster in compute. The FirePro is larger, more memory-capable, and faster in fill rates. No other specifications differ; both have a 33 W TDP, no power connectors, portable-device-dependent display outputs, and null RT/tensor cores, FP16, and launch MSRP fields.