AMD FirePro M4150 vs AMD FirePro W2100 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W2100 and AMD FirePro M4150 are both end-of-life workstation graphics solutions built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture, but benchmark data shows the W2100 holds a slim but definitive edge in the only head-to-head test available. The W2100’s Geekbench OpenCL score of 4093 beats the M4150’s 4013 by 2%, making it the winner in the sole comparison. The M4150, however, counters with a higher compute ceiling on paper, offering 549.1 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus the W2100’s 435.2 GFLOPS, alongside faster memory bandwidth at 64.00 GB/s compared to 28.80 GB/s.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results are limited to a single Geekbench OpenCL test, where the AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4093 against the AMD FirePro M4150’s 4013, a delta of 2% in favor of the W2100. This narrow margin places the W2100 slightly ahead in raw compute throughput as measured by this specific workload, but the gap is small enough to suggest that real-world differences in OpenCL tasks would be minimal.

Contextualizing these scores against their nearest rivals clarifies their standing. The W2100’s average benchmark score of 4295 places it 0.3% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282) and 0.6% above the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4268), while trailing the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335) by 0.9%. The M4150’s average score of 4013 sits 0.5% below the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033), but it leads the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977) by 0.9% and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964) by 1.2%. Both cards occupy a remarkably tight performance band, with the W2100 ranking in the 25th percentile of all GPUs and the M4150 in the 24th percentile, indicating they are entry-level parts with nearly identical compute capabilities in practice.

The single benchmark win for the W2100 does not tell the full story, as the M4150’s architectural advantages suggest it could outperform in memory-bound scenarios. The W2100’s victory in Geekbench OpenCL is notable, but the M4150’s GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth—more than double the W2100’s 28.80 GB/s—positions it better for tasks that saturate memory throughput rather than raw shader compute.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same foundational architecture: GCN 1.0, a 28 nm process node from TSMC, 950 million transistors, and a die size of 77 mm² with a transistor density of 12.3M / mm². The similarities end there, as the chips differ—the W2100 uses the Oland chip while the M4150 uses Opal—and their execution resources diverge significantly.

The M4150 is the more fully featured part in terms of compute units. It packs 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operations pipelines (ROPs), compared to the W2100’s 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This translates to a theoretical peak of 549.1 GFLOPS FP32 and 17.16 GTexel/s texture fill rate for the M4150, versus 435.2 GFLOPS and 13.60 GTexel/s for the W2100. The pixel rate is nearly identical, with the M4150 at 5.720 GPixel/s and the W2100 at 5.440 GPixel/s, reflecting their shared ROP count.

Memory architecture is where the two diverge most sharply. The W2100 uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The M4150, despite having only 1024 MB of memory, uses GDDR5 on the same 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s—a 122% advantage in bandwidth. Clock speeds also differ: the W2100 has a base clock of 630 MHz and a boost clock of 680 MHz, while the M4150’s core clocks are not listed in the data. Memory clocks are also distinct, with the W2100 running at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) and the M4150 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Form factor and power characteristics further separate them. The W2100 is a single-slot desktop card measuring 168 mm (6.6 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, with a 26 W TDP and no power connectors, requiring a suggested 200 W PSU. The M4150 is an MXM module for portable devices, with its TDP, power connectors, and suggested PSU listed as null, and its display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent" compared to the W2100’s 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. Both cards support PCIe 3.0 x8, DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API compatibility is identical.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD FirePro W2100 is the safer choice for desktop workstation users who prioritize consistent, verified performance in OpenCL workloads. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, scores 2% higher than the M4150, and offers twice the memory capacity at 2 GB versus 1 GB, which is critical for larger datasets that exceed the M4150’s frame buffer. Its 26 W TDP and single-slot design also make it exceptionally easy to integrate into compact systems without auxiliary power.

The AMD FirePro M4150 is the pick for mobile or embedded applications where the MXM form factor is a requirement, and where memory bandwidth is the bottleneck. Its 64.00 GB/s GDDR5 bandwidth is more than double the W2100’s, and its higher shader count (384 vs 320) and FP32 throughput (549.1 GFLOPS vs 435.2 GFLOPS) indicate superior raw compute potential in scenarios that the Geekbench OpenCL test may not fully capture. However, the M4150’s lack of a listed core clock, TDP, and any Vulkan benchmark result means its real-world performance is less substantiated by the available data.

For a desktop user, the W2100’s benchmark win and larger memory pool make it the data-backed recommendation. For a mobile designer, the M4150’s bandwidth and compute specifications make it the only viable option, despite its lower benchmark score. The 2% delta in OpenCL is negligible, so the decision hinges on form factor and memory characteristics rather than raw speed.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights only the fields where the two cards differ, based on the fact pack:

| Specification | AMD FirePro W2100 | AMD FirePro M4150 |

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

| Chip | Oland | Opal |

| Generation | FirePro GCN (Wx100) | FirePro Mobile (Mx100) |

| Base Clock | 630 MHz | null |

| Boost Clock | 680 MHz | null |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz / 1800 Mbps effective | 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 320 | 384 |

| TMUs | 20 | 24 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.440 GPixel/s | 5.720 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 13.60 GTexel/s | 17.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 435.2 GFLOPS | 549.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 26 W | null |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | None | null |

| Suggested PSU | 200 W | null |

| Display Outputs | 2x DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| Dimensions | 168 mm length, 69 mm height | null |

| Release Date | 2014-08-11 | 2013-10-15 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | Radeon Pro Mobile |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 4093 | 4013 |

| Geekbench Vulkan | 4497 | null |

| Percentile | 25 | 24 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 4295 | 4013 |

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD FirePro W2100 scores 4093, beating the AMD FirePro M4150’s 4013 by 2%, making it the winner in the sole head-to-head benchmark.

Q: Does the M4150 have any performance advantages over the W2100?

A: Yes, the M4150 has higher theoretical compute: 384 shading units versus 320, 24 TMUs versus 20, and FP32 performance of 549.1 GFLOPS versus 435.2 GFLOPS.

Q: Why is the M4150’s memory bandwidth so much higher?

A: The M4150 uses GDDR5 memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s, while the W2100 uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) on the same bus, yielding only 28.80 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity?

A: The W2100 has 2 GB of memory, double the M4150’s 1024 MB, which affects the maximum dataset size that can be held on the GPU.

Q: Are both cards compatible with the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, and both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface.

Q: Which card is better for a desktop workstation?

A: The W2100, given its single-slot form factor, 26 W TDP, 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, and higher Geekbench OpenCL score, is better suited for desktop use per the data.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W2100 wins in the following scenarios based on the data:

• OpenCL compute workloads: It holds a 2% benchmark lead over the M4150 in Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 4093 versus 4013.
• Memory capacity-sensitive tasks: Its 2 GB frame buffer is double the M4150’s 1024 MB, allowing larger textures, framebuffers, or compute datasets to reside on-card.
• Desktop integration: The single-slot design, 168 mm length, and 26 W TDP require no auxiliary power connectors and a suggested 200 W PSU, making it trivial to install in standard systems.
• Display connectivity: With 2x DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, it supports direct multi-monitor setups, whereas the M4150’s outputs are portable-device dependent.
• Vulkan performance: The W2100 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4497, while the M4150 has no Vulkan benchmark result listed, indicating the W2100’s Vulkan capability is verified by data.

The AMD FirePro M4150 wins in these areas:

• Raw compute throughput: Its 549.1 GFLOPS FP32, 17.16 GTexel/s texture rate, and 384 shading units exceed the W2100’s 435.2 GFLOPS, 13.60 GTexel/s, and 320 shading units, making it theoretically stronger in shader-heavy or compute-dense tasks.
• Memory bandwidth-bound workloads: The 64.00 GB/s GDDR5 bandwidth is more than double the W2100’s 28.80 GB/s, which matters for operations like large matrix multiplications, image processing, or data streaming that saturate memory.
• Mobile and embedded environments: As an MXM module, it is designed for portable devices where the W2100’s desktop form factor cannot be used, and its lack of a listed TDP and power connectors indicates a power envelope suited to laptops.
• Pixel fill rate: A slight edge at 5.720 GPixel/s versus 5.440 GPixel/s, giving it a marginal advantage in rasterization-heavy workloads at high resolutions.