AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX and AMD FirePro M4000 are two mobile graphics solutions from the same era, yet they target different priorities. Benchmark data shows a clear performance gap in the only head-to-head test available, but the underlying specifications reveal a more complex story about efficiency and design philosophy.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, where the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX scores 6,125 against the AMD FirePro M4000’s 5,537. This translates to a 10.6% victory for the NVIDIA part. In absolute terms, that is a meaningful margin for a synthetic compute workload, placing the GTX 670MX in a higher performance tier.

However, the delta is not overwhelming. The FirePro M4000’s score of 5,537 puts it within striking distance, suggesting that for certain workloads the AMD chip could remain competitive. The GTX 670MX’s average benchmark score of 5,721, derived from its two test results (OpenCL and Vulkan), further cements its lead over the FirePro’s single-test average of 5,537.

Context from the nearest rivals clarifies the positioning. The GTX 670MX’s closest competitor, the Intel Iris Pro Graphics P6300, scores 5,712, which is only 0.2% behind. This indicates the NVIDIA chip is at the top of a tight cluster. Conversely, the FirePro M4000’s nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M, scores 5,604, placing the AMD part 1.2% below that. The GTX 670MX is also 2.1% ahead of the Quadro M500M, a professional-grade card, which underscores its compute advantage. Meanwhile, the FirePro M4000 only leads the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M by 0.7% and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 by 1%, showing it is competitive with, but not superior to, mainstream gaming chips from its generation.

The GTX 670MX’s win in OpenCL is its only benchmark victory in the head-to-head data, but it is a decisive one. The 10.6% gap means that in raw compute throughput, the NVIDIA solution is the stronger choice. The FirePro M4000, with its lower score, does not win any direct benchmark comparisons in this dataset.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs stem from different architectural philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK104 chip, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 3,540 million transistors onto a 294 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.0M per mm². In contrast, the AMD FirePro M4000 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Chelsea chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with only 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.2M per mm².

This difference in scale is substantial. The GTX 670MX has nearly 2.4 times the transistor count and a die that is more than twice the size. The core configurations reflect this. The NVIDIA part features 960 shading units, 80 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster operation units (ROPs). The AMD part is far leaner, with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Consequently, the GTX 670MX achieves a pixel rate of 12.02 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 48.08 GTexel/s, while the FirePro M4000 manages 10.80 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s, respectively. The floating-point performance (FP32) follows suit: 1,153.9 GFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 691.2 GFLOPS for AMD.

Clock speeds also differ. The GTX 670MX runs at a fixed 601 MHz base and boost clock, with memory at 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective). The FirePro M4000 does not list base or boost clocks in the data, but its memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). This higher memory clock partially compensates for its narrower 128-bit bus, though its bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s still trails the GTX 670MX’s 67.20 GB/s, which uses a 192-bit bus. The NVIDIA card also has more memory: 3 GB GDDR5 versus 1 GB GDDR5 for the AMD chip.

Feature support shows minor API differences. The GTX 670MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The FirePro M4000 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA part also has a benchmark result for Vulkan (5,316), while the AMD part does not, indicating the GTX 670MX has been tested for that API.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, and by how much?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX wins, scoring 6,125 compared to the AMD FirePro M4000’s 5,537. This is a 10.6% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: How does the FirePro M4000 compare to its nearest rival, the NVIDIA Quadro M500M?

A: The FirePro M4000 scores 5,537, which is 1.2% lower than the Quadro M500M’s average score of 5,604. This places it slightly behind that professional NVIDIA card.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two GPUs?

A: The GTX 670MX has a bandwidth of 67.20 GB/s, while the FirePro M4000 has 64.00 GB/s. The NVIDIA card has a small 3.2 GB/s advantage, despite its lower effective memory clock.

Q: Does the FirePro M4000 have a higher transistor density than the GTX 670MX?

A: Yes, marginally. The FirePro M4000 has a density of 12.2M transistors per mm², while the GTX 670MX has 12.0M per mm². This is despite the GTX 670MX having a much larger die and more total transistors.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The GTX 670MX has 960 shading units and 80 TMUs, while the FirePro M4000 has 512 shading units and 32 TMUs. The NVIDIA part has double the shading units and 2.5 times the TMUs.

Q: What is the thermal design power (TDP) difference?

A: The GTX 670MX has a TDP of 75 W, while the FirePro M4000 has a TDP of 33 W. The AMD part is significantly more power-efficient, consuming less than half the power of the NVIDIA chip.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The most striking difference is in the chip itself: the GTX 670MX uses the GK104 with 3,540 million transistors, while the FirePro M4000 uses the Chelsea with 1,500 million. This leads to a die size difference of 294 mm² versus 123 mm². Core counts follow, with the NVIDIA part having 960 shading units, 80 TMUs, and 24 ROPs, compared to 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs on the AMD side.

Memory configurations diverge significantly. The GTX 670MX offers 3 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, while the FirePro M4000 offers 1 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. Bandwidth is close, at 67.20 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s, but the memory clocks differ: 700 MHz (2.8 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for AMD. Clock behavior also differs, as the GTX 670MX lists a base clock of 601 MHz and a boost clock of 601 MHz, whereas the FirePro M4000 has no base or boost clock data listed.

Performance rates are higher on the NVIDIA card: pixel rate is 12.02 GPixel/s versus 10.80 GPixel/s, texture rate is 48.08 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 compute is 1,153.9 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. The TDP is another major differentiator, with the GTX 670MX at 75 W and the FirePro M4000 at 33 W. The bus interface also differs: the GTX 670MX uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the FirePro M4000 uses MXM-A (3.0) and is a slot-width MXM Module. Release dates are close, with the GTX 670MX launching on 2012-09-30 and the FirePro M4000 on 2012-06-26. The API support shows a slight edge for AMD in DirectX (12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0)), but NVIDIA has a newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 versus 1.2.170).

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX wins in raw performance. It dominates the Geekbench OpenCL test with a 10.6% lead, and its higher core counts, larger memory pool, and greater compute throughput make it the clear choice for tasks that demand maximum processing power. Its 3 GB VRAM is particularly advantageous for workloads that require large textures or datasets, and its higher texture and pixel rates suggest it would handle graphically intensive applications better. The GTX 670MX also has a higher average benchmark score (5,721) and a better percentile ranking (33rd versus 32nd), indicating it sits slightly higher in the overall GPU hierarchy.

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins in efficiency. Its 33 W TDP is less than half of the GTX 670MX’s 75 W, making it a far better option for thin-and-light laptops or systems where battery life and thermal management are critical. Despite its lower absolute performance, it achieves a competitive memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s) that is only 3.2 GB/s behind the NVIDIA part, showing that its architecture is well-optimized for its power envelope. Its higher effective memory clock (4 Gbps versus 2.8 Gbps) also suggests it can move data quickly when needed, even with a narrower bus. The FirePro M4000’s smaller die and lower transistor count mean it is cheaper to produce and requires less cooling, which are practical advantages in mobile designs.

In terms of API support, the FirePro M4000 has a slight edge with DirectX 12 (11_1) versus the GTX 670MX’s DirectX 12 (11_0), which could matter for specific compatibility scenarios. However, the GTX 670MX counters with a newer Vulkan version and an additional Vulkan benchmark score, indicating it has been validated for that API.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs depends entirely on the user’s priorities. The data clearly shows that the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670MX is the superior performer. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 10.6%, and its specifications—more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, more memory, and higher compute rates—give it a decisive edge in any compute-heavy or graphics-intensive task. For a user who needs maximum performance from a mobile GPU and can tolerate the higher 75 W power draw, the GTX 670MX is the obvious pick. Its 3 GB frame buffer is also a significant advantage for modern workloads that exceed 1 GB of VRAM.

On the other hand, the AMD FirePro M4000 is the choice for efficiency-focused systems. Its 33 W TDP makes it ideal for ultraportable laptops where battery life and thermals are paramount. While it loses in raw performance, it is not a slouch—its 5,537 OpenCL score is within 10.6% of the GTX 670MX, and its memory bandwidth is nearly identical. This suggests that for lighter workloads, such as basic 3D rendering or general-purpose compute, the FirePro M4000 can deliver acceptable performance while consuming far less power. Its smaller die and lower transistor count also make it a more practical option for compact chassis.

Benchmark results indicate that the GTX 670MX is the better all-around GPU, but the FirePro M4000 is the better engineering trade-off for power-constrained environments. A user who values performance above all else should select the GTX 670MX. A user who prioritizes portability and efficiency, and who can accept a moderate performance penalty, should select the FirePro M4000. Neither card is a clear winner across every metric, but the data supports the GTX 670MX as the stronger performer and the FirePro M4000 as the more efficient one.