AMD FirePro M4150 vs AMD FirePro W4190M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head OpenCL benchmark between these two mobile workstation GPUs, and the result is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505 points against 4013 points for the AMD FirePro M4150. That is a 12.3% advantage for the W4190M, a meaningful gap in compute workloads where every percentage point translates into measurable rendering or simulation time.

Looking at the broader competitive context, the W4190M sits in the 26th percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the M4150 sits in the 24th percentile. The difference is modest in percentile terms, but the raw score gap tells a clearer story. The W4190M lands within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499 points) and is actually 1.2% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560 points, so the W4190M trails that part by a small margin). Against the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569 points), the W4190M is 1.4% behind. Those deltas are tight, which shows the W4190M is competitive with a broad range of mid-range GPUs from both the mobile and desktop segments.

The M4150, by contrast, sits in a slightly lower tier. Its nearest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M at 4033 points, a 0.5% deficit for the M4150. It edges ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977 points) by 0.9% and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964 points) by 1.2%. The M4150 also beats the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957 points) by 1.4%. These are all older or entry-level parts, which suggests the M4150 occupies a distinctly lower performance stratum than the W4190M.

The 12.3% delta in the head-to-head matchup is the single most important number in this comparison. It is not a narrow win that could be dismissed as run-to-run variance; it is a consistent, measurable advantage. The W4190M does not just win, it wins by a margin that would be noticeable in real-world GPU-accelerated tasks like OpenCL rendering, video encoding, or scientific computation.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4190M wins the only benchmark category recorded in the database: Geekbench OpenCL. That makes it the clear choice for any workload that relies on general-purpose compute on the GPU. The 4505 score reflects a combination of higher clock speeds and identical core counts, which we will examine in the architecture section. For professionals running OpenCL-accelerated applications such as CAD simulation, image processing, or data analysis, the W4190M delivers 12.3% more throughput than the M4150.

The AMD FirePro M4150 does not win any benchmark category in the database. It records zero wins in head-to-head comparisons. However, that does not mean it has no place. The M4150 is an earlier release, having launched in October 2013, while the W4190M arrived in November 2015. In the mobile workstation market, a two-year gap often means the older part is found in lower-cost systems or as a replacement for even older GPUs. The M4150 still offers 384 shading units and 64.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth, which is respectable for lightweight professional tasks. It is not a compute powerhouse, but it is a functional entry point.

The use-case split is therefore simple: the W4190M wins on raw compute performance, and the M4150 wins on the basis of being an older, likely more widely deployed part in legacy systems. If the task is maximum OpenCL throughput, the W4190M is the pick. If the task is replacing a failed GPU in an older laptop with a compatible MXM module, the M4150 may be the only option available.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same fundamental architecture: GCN 1.0, built on the Opal chip. They are fabricated at TSMC on a 28 nm process, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The transistor density is 12.3 million per square millimeter for both. This means the silicon is identical in design; the differences come from how AMD configured the clocks and memory.

The core configuration is the same: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. The W4190M has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz. The M4150 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, which is unusual, but its pixel rate and texture rate reveal the practical difference. The W4190M achieves 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s, while the M4150 achieves 5.720 GPixel/s and 17.16 GTexel/s. The ratio between those rates is approximately 26% in favor of the W4190M, which tracks with a higher effective clock on the newer part. The FP32 compute figures confirm this: the W4190M delivers 691.2 GFLOPS, while the M4150 delivers 549.1 GFLOPS.

Memory is another differentiator. The W4190M has 2 GB of GDDR5, while the M4150 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit memory bus and run at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective transfer, yielding identical bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. So the memory subsystem is the same in speed, but the W4190M has twice the capacity. For OpenCL workloads that spill beyond 1 GB of data, this is a significant advantage. The M4150 may struggle with larger datasets, while the W4190M has headroom.

Both parts use the same APIs: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. They share the same PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and the same MXM Module slot width. Display outputs are listed as portable device dependent, which is typical for mobile workstation GPUs. Neither has a recorded TDP, and the W4190M lists no power connectors while the M4150 has no entry for that field. The production status for both is end-of-life, and both share the same predecessor and successor designations: FirePro Mobility and Radeon Pro Mobile, respectively.

The architecture story is one of a shared foundation with divergent execution. The chip is identical, but the W4190M is clocked higher and given more memory. That is why it wins the benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M is faster, scoring 4505 points in Geekbench OpenCL against 4013 points for the AMD FirePro M4150, a 12.3% advantage.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: Yes, both have 384 shading units, along with 24 texture mapping units and 8 raster output units.

Q: Is the memory bandwidth different between the two?

A: No, both have 64.00 GB/s bandwidth from a 128-bit bus running at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective GDDR5 transfer. The difference is capacity: the W4190M has 2 GB, while the M4150 has 1024 MB.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 launched in October 2013, while the AMD FirePro W4190M launched in November 2015, a gap of roughly two years.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life in the database. Their predecessor is FirePro Mobility and their successor is Radeon Pro Mobile.

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

A: The W4190M is within 1.4% of the AMD Radeon RX 560 and 1.2% of the Intel HD Graphics P530, while the M4150 is within 1.4% of the NVIDIA GeForce 830M and 0.9% of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the database records.

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4190M | AMD FirePro M4150 |

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

| Generation | FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) | FirePro Mobile (Mx100) |

| Base Clock | 825 MHz | Not recorded |

| Boost Clock | 900 MHz | Not recorded |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 1024 MB |

| Pixel Rate | 7.200 GPixel/s | 5.720 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 17.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 691.2 GFLOPS | 549.1 GFLOPS |

| Release Date | 2015-11-11 | 2013-10-15 |

| Power Connectors | None | Not recorded |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 4505 | 4013 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 26 | 24 |

| Nearest Rivals | R7 M260, HD P530, RX 560, R5 M230 | GT 755M, HD 6850 X2, Quadro K2000, 830M |

The identical fields are worth restating for clarity: both use the Opal chip, GCN 1.0 architecture, 28 nm process at TSMC, 950 million transistors, 77 mm² die, 12.3M/mm² transistor density, 128-bit bus, 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, 8 ROPs, PCIe 3.0 x8, MXM Module slot, DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, Vulkan 1.2.170, and end-of-life production status.

The specification gap is dominated by clock speed and memory capacity. The W4190M is the newer, faster, and more capable part. The M4150 is the older, slower, and more limited part. The benchmark score difference of 12.3% is consistent with the FP32 compute difference, which shows the W4190M at 691.2 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS for the M4150. That is a 25.9% theoretical compute advantage, though the real-world OpenCL test compresses that to 12.3%, likely due to memory bandwidth being equal. With both GPUs sharing the same 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, memory-bound workloads will not show the full compute gap.

For a buyer or integrator choosing between these two, the W4190M is the superior part on every measurable dimension except release date. The M4150 is two years older, has half the memory, and delivers less compute throughput. The only reason to choose the M4150 would be availability in a specific legacy laptop chassis. The data in the database is unambiguous: the W4190M wins the compute benchmark, and the specification differences explain why.