AMD FirePro M4000 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M Comparison

The AMD FirePro M4000 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they target different corners of the laptop market. The benchmark data shows a remarkably tight competition in raw compute, yet a deeper look reveals significant architectural and feature disparities that could tip the scales depending on the intended workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head data point available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it presents a photo finish. The AMD FirePro M4000 scores 5,537, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M edges ahead with 5,604. This gives the GTX 760M a narrow victory by a 1.2% margin. In practical terms, this difference is negligible; the two GPUs deliver nearly identical OpenCL compute throughput in this specific test.

The context from their nearest rivals reinforces how close these two parts are. The FirePro M4000's average score of 5,537 places it just 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and 0.7% behind the GeForce GTX 765M. The GTX 760M's average score of 5,236, however, is a different story. It is pulled down by its Vulkan score of 4,868, which is significantly lower than its OpenCL result. This suggests that while the GTX 760M can hang with the competition in OpenCL, its Vulkan performance lags.

The GTX 760M's own rivals show a similar pattern of close scores. It is 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M, 1.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, but 0.9% behind the GeForce 940M and 1.3% behind the GeForce GTX 980M. The data indicates that both of these mobile GPUs sit in a crowded performance band where a few percentage points separate a large group of competitors. The FirePro M4000's OpenCL score is its only benchmark result, and it outpaces the GTX 760M's average score by a 5.7% margin, but that is an artifact of the GTX 760M's weaker Vulkan result dragging down its average.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is clear and fundamental. The AMD FirePro M4000 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture, using the "Chelsea" chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M uses the Kepler architecture with the "GK106S" chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts diverge sharply. The NVIDIA chip packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, while the AMD chip uses just 1,500 million on a smaller 123 mm² die. This results in a slightly higher transistor density for AMD at 12.2M per mm² versus NVIDIA's 11.5M per mm².

The execution resources tell a story of different design philosophies. The GTX 760M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The FirePro M4000 counters with 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. This 50% advantage in shading units and 100% advantage in TMUs for NVIDIA translates directly into a massive lead in texture fillrate. The GTX 760M delivers 46.02 GTexel/s, more than double the FirePro M4000's 21.60 GTexel/s. Pixel rate is closer, with NVIDIA at 11.50 GPixel/s versus AMD's 10.80 GPixel/s.

Clock speeds also differ, though the FirePro M4000's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. The GTX 760M runs at a 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost. Memory clocks are nearly identical, with AMD at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) and NVIDIA at 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The FP32 compute figures show the GTX 760M's advantage in raw number crunching: 1,104.4 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro M4000. This is a substantial 60% lead for NVIDIA in theoretical peak compute, yet the OpenCL benchmark shows them nearly tied, suggesting the FirePro M4000 is more efficient at extracting real-world performance from its available resources.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw compute throughput?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M has a significant theoretical advantage, delivering 1,104.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance compared to the AMD FirePro M4000's 691.2 GFLOPS. This is a 60% lead in raw peak compute.

Q: Is the NVIDIA GPU faster in every benchmark?

A: No. While the GTX 760M wins the only head-to-head OpenCL test by 1.2%, its Vulkan score of 4,868 is notably lower than its OpenCL score of 5,604. The FirePro M4000 has no Vulkan score listed, so a direct comparison in that API is impossible.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their immediate rivals?

A: The FirePro M4000's average score of 5,537 is 0.5% above the GeForce MX130 and 1% above the Radeon R7 M440. The GTX 760M's average of 5,236 puts it 1.5% above the Radeon R7 M260X but 0.9% below the GeForce 940M. Both cards are clustered within a narrow performance band.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The AMD FirePro M4000 comes with 1 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M doubles the capacity to 2 GB of GDDR5, also on a 128-bit bus, with a nearly identical bandwidth of 64.13 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a larger physical footprint?

A: The NVIDIA chip is significantly larger. It measures 221 mm² and contains 2,540 million transistors, while the AMD chip is 123 mm² with 1,500 million transistors. This gives AMD a slightly higher transistor density at 12.2M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm².

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The data shows the AMD FirePro M4000 has a TDP of 33 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M has a higher TDP of 55 W. This indicates the AMD part is more power-efficient, though the GTX 760M offers more compute and texture throughput.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. In the single OpenCL benchmark where they directly compete, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M is only 1.2% faster than the AMD FirePro M4000. However, this slim margin masks a huge divergence in specifications. The GTX 760M has 50% more shading units, 100% more TMUs, and delivers 60% more FP32 throughput. It also offers double the memory capacity (2 GB vs 1 GB) and a much higher transistor count.

The FirePro M4000's counter-argument is efficiency and API support. It consumes only 33 W versus the GTX 760M's 55 W, a 40% reduction in power draw. It also supports DirectX 12 (11_1) compared to the GTX 760M's DirectX 12 (11_0). The AMD card's Vulkan support is version 1.2.170, slightly older than NVIDIA's 1.2.175. For a workstation-class GPU, the FirePro M4000's efficiency and OpenCL performance parity make it a compelling choice for compute tasks where power is a constraint. For gaming or texture-heavy workloads, the GTX 760M's massive TMU advantage and higher clock speeds suggest it would be the stronger performer, despite the lack of a direct benchmark to confirm this.

The percentile rankings are nearly identical, with the FirePro M4000 at the 32nd percentile and the GTX 760M at the 31st percentile against all GPUs. This confirms that, on average, these are equivalent performers in the broader market. The choice ultimately comes down to workload: the GTX 760M for raw throughput and larger memory buffer, the FirePro M4000 for lower power consumption and a marginally newer DirectX feature level.

Specification Differences

• Chip: AMD uses "Chelsea"; NVIDIA uses "GK106S".
• Architecture: AMD is GCN 1.0; NVIDIA is Kepler.
• Generation: AMD is FirePro Mobile (Mx000); NVIDIA is GeForce 700M.
• Transistors: AMD has 1,500 million; NVIDIA has 2,540 million.
• Die Size: AMD is 123 mm²; NVIDIA is 221 mm².
• Transistor Density: AMD is 12.2M per mm²; NVIDIA is 11.5M per mm².
• Base Clock: AMD is not listed; NVIDIA is 628 MHz.
• Boost Clock: AMD is not listed; NVIDIA is 719 MHz.
• Memory Size: AMD is 1024 MB; NVIDIA is 2 GB.
• Shading Units: AMD has 512; NVIDIA has 768.
• TMUs: AMD has 32; NVIDIA has 64.
• Pixel Rate: AMD is 10.80 GPixel/s; NVIDIA is 11.50 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: AMD is 21.60 GTexel/s; NVIDIA is 46.02 GTexel/s.
• FP32: AMD is 691.2 GFLOPS; NVIDIA is 1,104.4 GFLOPS.
• TDP: AMD is 33 W; NVIDIA is 55 W.
• Bus Interface: AMD is MXM-A (3.0); NVIDIA is PCIe 3.0 x16.
• DirectX Support: AMD is 12 (11_1); NVIDIA is 12 (11_0).
• Vulkan Version: AMD is 1.2.170; NVIDIA is 1.2.175.
• Release Date: AMD is 2012-06-26; NVIDIA is 2013-05-29.
• Predecessor: AMD is FirePro Mobility; NVIDIA is GeForce 600M.
• Successor: AMD is Radeon Pro Mobile; NVIDIA is GeForce 800M.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4000 wins on power efficiency, with a 33 W TDP that is 22 W lower than the GTX 760M. It also holds a slight edge in OpenCL performance relative to its theoretical compute, suggesting better compute efficiency per FLOP. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) support is a minor feature advantage over the GTX 760M's 11_0. The FirePro M4000's higher transistor density (12.2M per mm²) indicates a more compact design.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M wins decisively on raw specification sheets. It offers 60% more FP32 compute, double the texture fillrate, and 50% more shading units. Its 2 GB memory buffer is double the FirePro's 1 GB, which is critical for modern workloads that exceed 1 GB of VRAM usage. The GTX 760M also has a higher pixel rate and a slightly newer Vulkan implementation. The data shows the GTX 760M wins the only direct benchmark, but by a margin so small that it could be considered a tie. For tasks that rely on texture throughput or require a larger framebuffer, the GTX 760M is the data-backed choice. For power-constrained environments or OpenCL compute tasks where efficiency matters more than peak throughput, the FirePro M4000 is the one to select.