AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The direct comparison between these two mobile graphics solutions is limited to a single recorded OpenCL workload, but that one result carries meaningful weight. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD FirePro M4000 scored 5,537 points against the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX’s 4,939 points, giving AMD a 12.1% advantage. This is not a marginal victory; it is a clear, double-digit performance gap in the one metric where both cards share a common benchmark.

However, the database contains richer context. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX also has a Vulkan score of 4,749, a result that does not exist for the AMD part in our records. When averaging the available benchmarks, the AMD FirePro M4000 holds an average score of 5,537, while the 940MX averages 4,844 across its two tests. The discrepancy between the OpenCL and Vulkan results for NVIDIA hints at API-level variance, where the 940MX’s Vulkan performance trails its OpenCL showing by roughly 3.8%, a detail that suggests driver or architecture-specific strengths rather than a uniform performance profile.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each card provides further positioning. The AMD FirePro M4000 sits within a tight cluster: it is just 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce MX130, 0.7% ahead of the GTX 765M, and 1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M440, while trailing the NVIDIA Quadro M500M by 1.2%. Those deltas are all within noise, meaning the FirePro M4000 is effectively tied with a whole tier of competing mobile GPUs. Its 32nd percentile ranking among all GPUs places it firmly in the lower-mid segment, but not at the very bottom.

The GeForce 940MX, by contrast, shows slightly more volatility in its rival comparisons. It is 0.2% behind the GTX 560M, 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX, and 1% behind the GTS 450, while running 1.1% ahead of the RTX 3080 12 GB. That last comparison is a statistical curiosity, the RTX 3080 12 GB is a desktop flagship from a different era, yet its recorded average score of 4,791 lands just below the 940MX’s 4,844. The 940MX’s 28th percentile ranking underscores its position slightly lower than the FirePro M4000 in the global distribution.

What stands out from the head-to-head data is that the AMD card wins the only direct comparison, and it does so by a margin that exceeds any of the rival deltas around either card. The 12.1% gap between them is larger than the 0.5% to 1.2% spreads that define their nearest competitors, suggesting that the FirePro M4000 occupies a genuinely higher performance tier in OpenCL workloads, even if both cards are near the bottom of the overall GPU hierarchy.

Where Each One Wins

The division of wins is straightforward: the AMD FirePro M4000 wins in OpenCL compute, and the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX wins in API coverage and power efficiency, though not in raw OpenCL speed.

For compute-heavy tasks that rely on OpenCL, the FirePro M4000 is the clear choice. Its 5,537 score is 12.1% higher than the 940MX’s 4,939, and that advantage holds across the entire benchmark suite we have for the AMD card. If a workload is built around OpenCL, whether that involves rendering, physics simulation, or general-purpose GPU compute, the data points to AMD’s part as the faster option, despite both cards being entry-level mobile solutions.

The GeForce 940MX, however, offers something the AMD card cannot: Vulkan support. The database records a Vulkan score of 4,749 for the 940MX, while the FirePro M4000 has no Vulkan benchmark on file. For applications that have moved to Vulkan, the 940MX is the only one of these two with demonstrated capability in that API. Its Vulkan performance is lower than its OpenCL score, but the mere presence of a working Vulkan path expands the software ecosystem the card can serve.

Power consumption is another area where the 940MX pulls ahead. The NVIDIA card draws 23 W, while the AMD FirePro M4000 consumes 33 W, a difference of 10 W. For thin-and-light laptops, that 10 W gap can translate into lower heat output, longer battery life, or a smaller cooling solution. The 940MX’s lower TDP makes it the more sensible choice for ultraportable designs where thermal headroom is precious.

Memory capacity also favors the 940MX. The NVIDIA card carries 2 GB of GDDR5, while the AMD part has only 1 GB. In modern workloads that exceed the 1 GB frame buffer, the 940MX can hold more textures, geometry, or intermediate data without spilling to system memory. This does not appear in the OpenCL score, where AMD wins anyway, but it matters for real-world applications that are memory-hungry.

The AMD card counters with memory bandwidth. Its 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth over a 128-bit bus is substantially higher than the 940MX’s 40.10 GB/s over a 64-bit bus. That bandwidth advantage helps explain the FirePro’s OpenCL lead, since many compute kernels are memory-bound. The AMD card also has double the ROPs, 16 versus 8, which generally improves fill-rate-bound scenarios like pixel-heavy rendering, even though its pixel rate of 10.80 GPixel/s versus 6.888 GPixel/s confirms that advantage in practice.

Architecture Differences

These two GPUs come from different architectural generations, and the data reveals the design philosophies behind each. The AMD FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX uses the GM107 chip on Maxwell architecture. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the similarities end there.

The transistor counts differ: the FirePro M4000 packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, while the 940MX fits 1,870 million transistors into a 148 mm² die. The transistor density works out to 12.2 million per square millimeter for AMD and 12.6 million for NVIDIA, a marginal difference. The 940MX has more transistors, a larger die, and slightly higher density, yet it still consumes less power, which speaks to Maxwell’s efficiency improvements over GCN 1.0.

Clock speeds tell a partial story. The 940MX has explicit base and boost clocks of 795 MHz and 861 MHz, whereas the FirePro M4000’s clock fields are null in the database. The NVIDIA card’s memory runs at 1253 MHz with 5 Gbps effective speed, while the AMD card’s memory runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective. Despite the higher memory clock on NVIDIA, the AMD card achieves higher bandwidth due to its wider 128-bit bus, versus 64-bit on the 940MX.

The compute resources are identical in one key respect: both cards have 512 shading units and 32 texture mapping units. That parity makes the performance difference attributable to other factors: memory bandwidth, ROP count, clock behavior, and architecture efficiency. The AMD card has 16 ROPs versus 8 on the 940MX, which is a significant structural difference. Its texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s is lower than the 940MX’s 27.55 GTexel/s, despite equal TMU counts, because the NVIDIA card’s higher clocks push texture throughput ahead. In FP32 compute, the 940MX achieves 881.7 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS for the AMD card, meaning NVIDIA actually has higher theoretical compute, yet loses the OpenCL benchmark. This is a curious inversion, the measured performance contradicts the raw specifications, likely due to bandwidth constraints or driver behavior in OpenCL.

API support diverges as well. The FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 940MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card has a newer Vulkan version and a more restrictive DirectX feature level, though both are functionally limited relative to desktop parts. The bus interface also differs: AMD uses MXM-A (3.0), while NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x8.

Release timing shows a four-year gap. The FirePro M4000 launched on June 26, 2012, while the 940MX arrived on June 27, 2016. Both are now end-of-life, but the AMD card’s architecture predates the NVIDIA part by a full generation. The AMD card’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. The 940MX’s predecessor is GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5,537 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 12.1% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX’s 4,939.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the database records a Vulkan score of 4,749 for the 940MX. The AMD FirePro M4000 lists Vulkan 1.2.170 API support but has no recorded Vulkan benchmark.

Q: Which card has more memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 has 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth over a 128-bit bus, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has 40.10 GB/s over a 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX consumes 23 W, while the AMD FirePro M4000 consumes 33 W, a 10 W difference in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: How do these cards rank globally?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX sits at the 28th percentile.

Q: Which card has more memory capacity?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD FirePro M4000 has 1 GB.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every measurable specification. The AMD FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX uses the GM107 chip with Maxwell architecture. Both use TSMC’s 28 nm process, but the AMD card has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the NVIDIA card has 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die.

Clock speeds are only fully documented for the NVIDIA card, which lists base and boost clocks of 795 MHz and 861 MHz, with memory at 1253 MHz and 5 Gbps effective. The AMD card lists only memory at 1000 MHz and 4 Gbps effective, with no base or boost figures. Memory configuration favors AMD in bandwidth but NVIDIA in capacity: 1 GB on AMD versus 2 GB on NVIDIA, with 64.00 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s.

Shading units and TMUs are identical at 512 and 32, respectively, but ROPs differ at 16 for AMD versus 8 for NVIDIA. Pixel rate is 10.80 GPixel/s for AMD versus 6.888 GPixel/s for NVIDIA. Texture rate is 21.60 GTexel/s for AMD versus 27.55 GTexel/s for NVIDIA. FP32 compute is 691.2 GFLOPS for AMD versus 881.7 GFLOPS for NVIDIA. TDP is 33 W for AMD versus 23 W for NVIDIA.

Both use MXM Module slot width and have no power connectors. The bus interface differs: MXM-A (3.0) for AMD, PCIe 3.0 x8 for NVIDIA. Display outputs are identical, listed as portable device dependent. DirectX support differs at 12 (11_1) for AMD versus 12 (11_0) for NVIDIA. OpenGL is 4.6 for both. Vulkan support differs at 1.2.170 for AMD versus 1.4 for NVIDIA. Release dates are June 26, 2012, for AMD and June 27, 2016, for NVIDIA. Both are end-of-life, and neither has a launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The data paints a nuanced picture. In the only head-to-head benchmark available, the AMD FirePro M4000 wins decisively with a 12.1% OpenCL advantage. Its higher memory bandwidth and doubled ROP count likely contribute to this result, overcoming the NVIDIA card’s superior theoretical FP32 throughput and higher clocks. For any workload that leans on OpenCL, the AMD card is the better performer according to our measurements.

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, however, is the more balanced mobile solution. It draws 10 W less power, carries twice the memory, supports a newer Vulkan version, and has a recorded Vulkan score, which the AMD card lacks. Its lower percentile ranking, 28th versus 32nd, is offset by its efficiency and API coverage. For a laptop where battery life, thermals, and software compatibility matter more than raw OpenCL compute, the 940MX is the safer choice.

The 33 W TDP of the FirePro M4000 is notable for a mobile part, suggesting it was designed for larger chassis or professional workstations rather than thin consumer laptops. The 940MX’s 23 W makes it better suited to mainstream ultraportables. The AMD card’s 1 GB memory is a limitation for modern applications, while the 940MX’s 2 GB offers more headroom.

Buyers who prioritize OpenCL compute performance, such as those running legacy CAD or scientific workloads, should look at the AMD FirePro M4000. Its 12.1% lead over the 940MX is the largest performance delta in the entire comparison field. Buyers who need Vulkan support, lower power draw, or more memory should choose the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX. Both cards are end-of-life products, so availability and driver maturity will factor into any decision, but the recorded data gives AMD the compute crown and NVIDIA the efficiency and compatibility edge.