AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA GeForce 825M Comparison

The AMD FirePro M4150 and NVIDIA GeForce 825M are two end-of-life mobile graphics processors aimed at different segments of the laptop market. The data shows a clear but narrow performance winner in the AMD part, which leads the sole benchmark by 8.6%. However, the specification sheets reveal significant architectural and memory differences that go beyond the raw score. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, architectural designs, and specifications to determine which GPU is better suited for specific tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M scores 3694 points. The AMD part leads by 8.6% in this test.

Q: How does the AMD FirePro M4150 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The FirePro M4150 sits within a tight performance cluster. It is 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033), but 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977) and 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964).

Q: What is the performance context for the NVIDIA GeForce 825M?

A: The GeForce 825M is 0.6% behind both the GeForce GT 740M (3717) and the Quadro 3000M (3718). It also trails the GeForce GT 635M (3740) by 1.2%, but is 1.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3649).

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The FirePro M4150 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 825M uses 1024 MB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing only 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 825M contains 1,020 million transistors, while the AMD FirePro M4150 has 950 million. Despite having fewer transistors, the AMD chip has a higher transistor density at 12.3M / mm² compared to 11.7M / mm².

Q: What is the pixel and texture rate difference?

A: The GeForce 825M has a higher pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s for the FirePro M4150. The NVIDIA part also leads in texture rate with 30.11 GTexel/s compared to 17.16 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD FirePro M4150 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M employs the Kepler 2.0 architecture with the GK208 chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the chip designs diverge significantly.

The AMD chip has a die size of 77 mm² and packs 950 million transistors, resulting in a density of 12.3M / mm². The NVIDIA chip is larger at 87 mm² and contains 1,020 million transistors, but has a slightly lower density of 11.7M / mm². This suggests the AMD design is more compact in terms of transistor packing.

Both GPUs feature 384 shading units and 8 ROPs, but they differ in texture mapping units. The FirePro M4150 has 24 TMUs, while the GeForce 825M has 32 TMUs. This difference directly impacts texture throughput, contributing to the NVIDIA part's higher texture rate of 30.11 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s.

The memory architecture is another major divergence. The FirePro M4150 uses GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, while the GeForce 825M uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. This results in a massive bandwidth advantage for the AMD part: 64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. The memory clock also differs, with the AMD running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) and the NVIDIA at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

API support shows some differences. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GeForce 825M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175. The AMD part has a slightly higher DirectX feature level.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only available head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and the AMD FirePro M4150 wins decisively. The AMD part scores 4013 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce 825M scores 3694 points. This gives the FirePro M4150 an 8.6% advantage.

This result is interesting because the GeForce 825M has higher theoretical compute metrics. The NVIDIA part delivers 722.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the AMD part delivers 549.1 GFLOPS. Similarly, the GeForce 825M has a higher pixel rate (7.528 GPixel/s vs 5.720 GPixel/s) and texture rate (30.11 GTexel/s vs 17.16 GTexel/s). Yet the AMD part wins the OpenCL test.

The likely explanation lies in memory bandwidth. The FirePro M4150's GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus provides 64.00 GB/s, which is over 4 times the bandwidth of the GeForce 825M's DDR3 on a 64-bit bus (14.40 GB/s). OpenCL workloads often stress memory bandwidth, and this massive advantage likely offsets the NVIDIA part's higher compute throughput.

The percentile rankings reflect this outcome. The FirePro M4150 sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the GeForce 825M sits at the 22nd percentile. This places both in the lower tier of performance, but the AMD part is positioned slightly higher.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro M4150 | NVIDIA GeForce 825M |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler 2.0 |

| Chip | Opal | GK208 |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,020 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 87 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 11.7M / mm² |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 850 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 941 MHz |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.720 GPixel/s | 7.528 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.16 GTexel/s | 30.11 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 549.1 GFLOPS | 722.7 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not specified | 33 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

| Vulkan Version | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| DirectX Version | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the AMD FirePro M4150. It wins the only head-to-head test by 8.6%, and its percentile ranking (24th) is two points higher than the GeForce 825M (22nd). For any workload measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the AMD part is the better choice.

However, the specification sheets tell a more nuanced story. The NVIDIA GeForce 825M has higher raw compute capabilities, including 722.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 549.1 GFLOPS, and significantly higher pixel and texture rates. These metrics suggest the NVIDIA part could be better suited for tasks that rely on raw shader throughput, like certain rendering workloads or compute tasks that fit in the limited memory bandwidth.

The critical differentiator is memory. The FirePro M4150's GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is vastly superior to the GeForce 825M's DDR3 with 14.40 GB/s. This makes the AMD part the clear winner for memory-intensive applications, which the OpenCL benchmark reflects.

The GeForce 825M does have a defined TDP of 33 W, while the FirePro M4150's TDP is not specified. The NVIDIA part also has a boost clock of 941 MHz and a base clock of 850 MHz, while the AMD part's clock speeds are not provided. The GeForce 825M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) while the FirePro M4150 is an MXM module, indicating different physical form factors.

Where Each One Wins

AMD FirePro M4150 wins in: The Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, scoring 8.6% higher. Memory bandwidth is its primary advantage, with 64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s. The GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus is fundamentally superior to the DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. This makes it the better choice for any workload that is memory-bound, such as large data transfers, certain compute kernels, or applications that access memory frequently. Its higher transistor density (12.3M / mm²) also indicates a more efficient packing of resources.

NVIDIA GeForce 825M wins in: Raw compute throughput. It delivers 722.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, which is 31.6% higher than the AMD part's 549.1 GFLOPS. It also has higher pixel rate (7.528 GPixel/s vs 5.720 GPixel/s) and texture rate (30.11 GTexel/s vs 17.16 GTexel/s), thanks to its 32 TMUs versus 24 on the AMD part. This makes it potentially better for shader-heavy workloads or tasks that rely on texture fill rates. The GeForce 825M also has a defined power envelope of 33 W, while the AMD part's TDP is unspecified. Its IGP form factor suggests it is designed for integration into compact systems, while the MXM module of the AMD part is for upgradeable laptop slots. The NVIDIA part also has a slightly newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 vs 1.2.170).

The choice ultimately depends on the workload. For OpenCL compute tasks that leverage memory bandwidth, the AMD FirePro M4150 is the superior part. For tasks that depend on raw shader throughput and texture processing, the NVIDIA GeForce 825M has the theoretical advantage, though this is not reflected in the available benchmark results.