AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940M Comparison

The AMD FirePro M4000 and NVIDIA GeForce 940M represent two distinct approaches to mobile graphics, separated by nearly three years of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear, though not overwhelming, performance leader in the GeForce 940M, which wins the sole head-to-head benchmark, but the FirePro M4000 offers its own set of compensating characteristics that make this a more nuanced comparison than a simple scoreboard.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are definitive. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M scores 6018 points, while the AMD FirePro M4000 trails with 5537 points. This translates to an 8% performance deficit for the AMD part, a margin that is meaningful in real-world compute tasks but not a generational gap. The GeForce 940M’s lead here is consistent with its raw compute specifications, which show a significant advantage in floating-point throughput.

This 8% delta is interesting when placed in the context of each card’s nearest rivals. The FirePro M4000’s score of 5537 puts it in a tight cluster with the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508, only 0.5% behind) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, 0.7% behind). It also sits just ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, 1% behind). This suggests the FirePro M4000 is positioned right at the edge of a performance tier, barely edging out some older mid-range parts. Conversely, the GeForce 940M’s 6018 score places it in a different neighborhood, with the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M (5308) and GeForce 930A (5317) trailing by 0.4% and 0.6% respectively. This is a curious result—the 940M actually outperforms the far more prestigious GTX 980M in this specific OpenCL test, though the delta is minuscule. The data implies that the GeForce 940M, despite its lower-end positioning, delivers compute performance that punches above its weight class.

The real story lies in the architectural throughput numbers. The GeForce 940M’s FP32 performance is listed at 1,124.4 GFLOPS, a substantial jump from the FirePro M4000’s 691.2 GFLOPS. This nearly 63% raw compute advantage explains the 8% benchmark win, but it also highlights an inefficiency in the NVIDIA design. The GeForce 940M’s pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s and texture rate of 35.14 GTexel/s are also far higher than the FirePro M4000’s 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s, respectively. Yet, these massive theoretical advantages do not translate into a proportional benchmark lead, suggesting that real-world OpenCL performance is bottlenecked by something other than raw shader throughput—likely memory bandwidth.

The Verdict

From a pure performance standpoint, the data clearly favors the NVIDIA GeForce 940M. Its 8% lead in the OpenCL benchmark, combined with significantly higher pixel, texture, and FP32 rates, makes it the superior choice for compute-heavy tasks. The GeForce 940M wins the only head-to-head comparison, and its average benchmark score of 5284 is only slightly lower than its peak OpenCL score, indicating consistent performance across different workloads. The FirePro M4000’s average score of 5537 matches its single benchmark result, showing no variance but also no hidden strengths in other test scenarios.

However, the verdict is not a simple coronation. The GeForce 940M’s 75 W TDP is more than double the FirePro M4000’s 33 W. This is a critical data point for mobile applications, where thermal headroom and battery life are paramount. The FirePro M4000 achieves 92% of the GeForce 940M’s OpenCL score (5537 vs 6018) while consuming less than half the power. For a laptop chassis, this efficiency differential could be the deciding factor. The AMD part also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, a mature implementation, whereas the NVIDIA part lists Vulkan 1.4, which is newer but not necessarily better supported in all applications. The GeForce 940M’s higher DirectX 12 support (11_0 vs 11_1 for AMD) is a slight edge, but both are old enough that this is largely academic.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 940M is the clear winner in raw compute performance. Its higher scores in OpenCL, along with superior pixel and texture fill rates, make it the better option for 3D rendering, video encoding, and any GPU-accelerated application that can leverage its Maxwell architecture’s strengths. The 2 GB of DDR3 memory, while slower in bandwidth, offers double the capacity of the FirePro M4000’s 1 GB, which is advantageous for larger datasets that fit within VRAM. The 940M’s boost clock of 1098 MHz also ensures sustained performance under load, a feature the FirePro M4000 lacks entirely, as its base and boost clocks are listed as null.

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins in efficiency and bandwidth. Its 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is over four times higher than the GeForce 940M’s 14.40 GB/s. This is a massive disparity that likely explains why the 8% benchmark gap is so small despite NVIDIA’s huge compute advantage. Memory-bound workloads, such as certain image processing or database operations, could potentially see the FirePro M4000 perform competitively or even better, despite its lower overall score. The 128-bit memory bus, compared to the 940M’s 64-bit bus, is a fundamental architectural advantage for AMD. Additionally, its 33 W TDP makes it far more suitable for thin-and-light laptops where the 75 W GeForce 940M would require more substantial cooling and reduce battery life.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher benchmark score in the head-to-head test?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M scores 6018 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, while the AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5537, giving NVIDIA an 8% lead.

Q: How does the FirePro M4000 compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce MX130?

A: The FirePro M4000 scores 5537, which is 0.5% ahead of the GeForce MX130’s 5508, placing them in the same performance tier.

Q: What is the most significant memory specification difference between the two?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has a 128-bit memory bus with GDDR5 memory, providing 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940M has a 64-bit bus with DDR3 memory, providing only 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a higher power consumption, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M has a TDP of 75 W, which is more than double the AMD FirePro M4000’s 33 W.

Q: Does the GeForce 940M have a higher average benchmark score than the FirePro M4000?

A: No. The FirePro M4000 has an average benchmark score of 5537, while the GeForce 940M’s average is 5284, which is lower due to its Vulkan score of 4549 being included in the average.

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

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M uses the GM107 chip with 1,870 million transistors, while the AMD FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip with 1,500 million transistors.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD FirePro M4000 uses GCN 1.0, a first-generation compute-focused design, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940M uses Maxwell, a later architecture optimized for efficiency. Both are manufactured on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there. The NVIDIA chip, GM107, is larger at 148 mm² and contains 1,870 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6M / mm². The AMD chip, Chelsea, is smaller at 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors, giving a density of 12.2M / mm². This makes the NVIDIA chip marginally denser.

Both GPUs have identical core counts for shading units (512), TMUs (32), and ROPs (16), yet the NVIDIA part achieves much higher pixel and texture rates—17.57 GPixel/s and 35.14 GTexel/s versus 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s. This is because the GeForce 940M operates at higher clock speeds, with a base of 1020 MHz and a boost of 1098 MHz, whereas the FirePro M4000 has no listed base or boost clocks, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz. The NVIDIA part also supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The FirePro M4000’s GCN 1.0 architecture was designed with compute in mind, but its lower clocks and older design hold it back.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal stark contrasts in memory and power. The AMD FirePro M4000 comes with 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M has 2048 MB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering only 14.40 GB/s. This is the single largest hardware disparity, and it explains why the FirePro M4000 remains competitive despite its older architecture. The memory clock also differs: the FirePro M4000 runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the GeForce 940M runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Power consumption is another major differentiator. The FirePro M4000 has a TDP of 33 W, making it an ultra-low-power part ideal for slim notebooks. The GeForce 940M, by contrast, has a TDP of 75 W, which is more typical of a performance-oriented mobile GPU. Both use MXM modules, but the bus interface differs: the FirePro M4000 uses MXM-A (3.0), while the GeForce 940M uses the larger MXM-B (3.0). Neither card requires external power connectors, and both have portable-device-dependent display outputs. The AMD part’s FP32 performance is 691.2 GFLOPS, while the NVIDIA part reaches 1,124.4 GFLOPS, reinforcing its compute advantage. The GeForce 940M also has a higher pixel rate and texture rate, as noted, while the FirePro M4000 counters with superior memory bandwidth.