AMD FirePro M4150 vs AMD Radeon R7 M260 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded database contains one direct benchmark comparison between these two mobile graphics parts. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 3708 points. This yields a delta of -7.6% for the Radeon, meaning the FirePro leads by a meaningful margin in this compute-oriented workload. The FirePro M4150 wins the only head-to-head comparison in the database, and the overall win tally stands at 0 for the Radeon R7 M260 and 1 for the FirePro M4150.

The OpenCL result reflects raw throughput for general-purpose GPU computing. The FirePro M4150's higher score suggests a more efficient execution of the benchmark's parallel workload, despite the Radeon R7 M260 having a higher FP32 rating (752.6 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS). This discrepancy indicates that peak theoretical throughput does not always translate directly into observed performance, as memory subsystem behavior and driver scheduling can influence real-world results.

Looking beyond the direct comparison, the average benchmark score in the database places the Radeon R7 M260 at 4499 points across all recorded tests, while the FirePro M4150 averages 4013 points. The Radeon's average is boosted by its additional Vulkan benchmark result of 5289 points, a test that the FirePro has no recorded score for. When isolating the shared OpenCL test, the FirePro is clearly ahead by 305 points. For the Radeon, the Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289 is substantially higher than its OpenCL score of 3708, indicating that the architecture responds differently depending on the API and workload characteristics.

The Radeon R7 M260 sits at the 26th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the FirePro M4150 sits at the 24th percentile. These percentile values are close, but the FirePro's higher OpenCL score and lower average score (due to lacking a second benchmark) illustrate how percentile rankings can be influenced by the number and type of tests recorded for each part. The Radeon's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD FirePro W4190M at 4505 points (delta -0.1%), Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 points (delta -1.3%), AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4569 points (delta -1.5%), and AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4577 points (delta -1.7%). These deltas show that the Radeon R7 M260 sits within 1.7% of four other GPUs, making it tightly clustered in performance terms.

For the FirePro M4150, its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M at 4033 points (delta -0.5%), AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 at 3977 points (delta 0.9%), NVIDIA Quadro K2000 at 3964 points (delta 1.2%), and NVIDIA GeForce 830M at 3957 points (delta 1.4%). The FirePro leads three of these four rivals, trailing only the GeForce GT 755M by a narrow 0.5% margin. This positioning shows that the FirePro M4150 competes effectively within its performance class, despite being an older architecture.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the AMD FirePro M4150 is the clear winner in the only benchmark where both parts have a score. Its Geekbench OpenCL result of 4013 beats the Radeon R7 M260's 3708 by 7.6%. Users who prioritize OpenCL compute performance in portable workstation-class applications should favor the FirePro M4150 based on this measurement.

However, the Radeon R7 M260 has a counterargument in its Vulkan score of 5289, which is the highest single benchmark result recorded for either GPU. If the target application uses Vulkan, the Radeon offers a substantial advantage, as the FirePro has no recorded Vulkan result to compare. The Radeon's average benchmark score of 4499 also exceeds the FirePro's 4013 average, though this is partly due to the Vulkan score inflating the average.

The percentile ranking favors the Radeon slightly (26th versus 24th), but this gap is small and within the noise range of the database's overall GPU distribution. For a user choosing between these two parts strictly on benchmark evidence, the decision hinges on the workload: OpenCL-heavy tasks point to the FirePro M4150, while Vulkan-capable software points to the Radeon R7 M260. The FirePro's single win in the head-to-head test gives it the edge in the direct comparison, but the Radeon's broader benchmark coverage suggests it may be more versatile in mixed API environments.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU performs better in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013 points, which is 305 points higher than the AMD Radeon R7 M260's 3708 points. This represents a 7.6% advantage for the FirePro.

Q: Does the Radeon R7 M260 have any benchmark where it outperforms the FirePro M4150?

A: The Radeon R7 M260 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 5289. The FirePro M4150 has no recorded Vulkan benchmark result, so the Radeon holds the only available score in this test category.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260 has an average benchmark score of 4499 points across its recorded tests. The AMD FirePro M4150 has an average benchmark score of 4013 points from its single recorded test.

Q: How do these GPUs rank among all GPUs in the database?

A: The Radeon R7 M260 sits at the 26th percentile, while the FirePro M4150 sits at the 24th percentile. Both are in the lower half of the overall GPU distribution.

Q: Which GPU is closer to its nearest rival in terms of average score?

A: The Radeon R7 M260 is 0.1% behind the AMD FirePro W4190M (4505 points) and 1.3% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560 points). The FirePro M4150 is 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033 points) and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977 points).

Q: Does the Radeon R7 M260 have a higher theoretical FP32 throughput?

A: Yes, the Radeon R7 M260 has a recorded FP32 performance of 752.6 GFLOPS, while the FirePro M4150 has 549.1 GFLOPS. Despite this, the FirePro wins the OpenCL benchmark, indicating that theoretical compute capacity does not always dictate measured performance.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification areas. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 uses a Topaz chip, while the AMD FirePro M4150 uses an Opal chip. The Radeon has a base clock of 940 MHz and a boost clock of 980 MHz, while the FirePro has no recorded base or boost clock values. Memory configuration differs substantially: the Radeon has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro's memory clock is listed as 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, while the Radeon's memory clock is 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective.

The shading unit count is identical at 384 for both, as are the texture mapping units (24) and render output units (8). The pixel rate differs: the Radeon achieves 7.840 GPixel/s versus the FirePro's 5.720 GPixel/s. Texture rate also favors the Radeon at 23.52 GTexel/s against 17.16 GTexel/s for the FirePro. The FirePro supports FP16 with a 1:1 ratio to FP32 (549.1 GFLOPS), while the Radeon's FP16 is listed as 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1). The FirePro's FP16 value is recorded as null, so no direct comparison is possible.

The FirePro M4150 is specified as an MXM Module form factor, while the Radeon R7 M260 has no slot width recorded. Display outputs for the FirePro are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," while the Radeon has no display output information. The Radeon's transistor count is 1,550 million on a 125 mm² die, while the FirePro uses 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.4M per mm² for the Radeon and 12.3M per mm² for the FirePro.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two parts is significant. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 is built on Graphics Core Next (GCN) 3.0 architecture, while the AMD FirePro M4150 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture. This generational difference affects feature support and efficiency. The Radeon belongs to the "Gem System (R7 M200)" generation, whereas the FirePro belongs to the "FirePro Mobile (Mx100)" generation. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so process technology is not a differentiator.

The DirectX support differs: the Radeon supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170, according to the database. The Radeon's newer GCN 3.0 architecture likely contributes to its higher Vulkan benchmark score of 5289, as Vulkan was designed to leverage modern GPU features. The FirePro's GCN 1.0 architecture lacks some of the later GCN refinements, which may explain why it has no recorded Vulkan score.

The Radeon's predecessor is listed as "Solar System," and its successor is "Polaris Mobile." The FirePro's predecessor is "FirePro Mobility," and its successor is "Radeon Pro Mobile." The Radeon was released on June 10, 2014, while the FirePro was released on October 15, 2013, making the FirePro roughly eight months older. Both parts are marked as end-of-life in the database. The Radeon's higher FP32 throughput (752.6 GFLOPS) and higher pixel and texture rates suggest that its GCN 3.0 architecture executes shader and texture operations more efficiently per clock, despite the FirePro's wider memory bus providing superior bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s). This bandwidth advantage in the FirePro likely explains its stronger OpenCL performance, as compute workloads often stress memory throughput more than raw ALU capacity.