AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA GeForce 920M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce 920M scores 3725 points. This gives the AMD part a 7.7% advantage in raw compute performance. The margin is meaningful but not overwhelming; it places the FirePro M4150 clearly ahead in OpenCL workloads, which often reflect general-purpose GPU compute tasks rather than pure graphics rendering.

To contextualize the FirePro M4150's position, the database places it at the 24th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, averages 4033 points, which is only 0.5% higher. The FirePro M4150 also edges out the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977 points, 0.9% behind) and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964 points, 1.2% behind). The NVIDIA GeForce 830M sits at 3957 points, 1.4% behind the FirePro. These are tight margins, indicating that the FirePro M4150 sits in a competitive cluster of GPUs from the same era, despite its age.

The GeForce 920M, by contrast, sits at the 20th percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 3287 points, which includes both the OpenCL result and a Vulkan result of 2849 points. The FirePro M4150 has only one recorded benchmark, so its average score equals its OpenCL score of 4013. The gap in average scores is substantial: the FirePro M4150 leads by roughly 22% when comparing the arithmetic means of their recorded test results.

The GeForce 920M's nearest rivals show a different competitive picture. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M averages 3316 points, only 0.9% higher than the 920M. The Intel HD Graphics 530 averages 3332 points, 1.4% higher. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 640 averages 3210 points, 2.4% lower than the 920M. The Intel HD Graphics P4600 averages 3389 points, 3% higher. This suggests the GeForce 920M is positioned near the boundary between entry-level discrete GPUs and integrated graphics solutions, with its closest competition coming from both camps.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4150 wins the sole head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a 7.7% margin. This is the only recorded direct comparison, so the FirePro's victory is unambiguous within the database. The score of 4013 versus 3725 indicates that for OpenCL compute workloads, the FirePro M4150 is the stronger option. This type of workload benefits from raw shader throughput and memory bandwidth, both of which favor the AMD part's configuration.

The NVIDIA GeForce 920M does have an additional benchmark result that the FirePro lacks: a Geekbench Vulkan score of 2849. However, without a corresponding Vulkan result for the FirePro M4150, no direct comparison can be made in that API. The database records no Vulkan benchmark for the FirePro M4150, so the 920M's Vulkan score stands alone. This means the GeForce 920M can claim a measurable Vulkan compute result, but the data does not indicate whether it would beat the FirePro in that specific test.

For gaming and graphics-oriented tasks, the benchmark data does not provide direct evidence. The recorded tests are compute-oriented (OpenCL and Vulkan), not rasterization tests. However, the underlying specifications suggest different strengths. The GeForce 920M has a higher pixel rate (7.632 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s) and a higher texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s), which typically benefits fill-rate-bound graphics workloads. The FirePro M4150 counters with significantly higher memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s), which helps in bandwidth-sensitive compute and certain high-resolution texture scenarios.

In terms of average benchmark score, the FirePro M4150 leads decisively: 4013 versus 3287. This 22% gap in the database's aggregate metric reflects the fact that the FirePro has a higher single-test score, while the GeForce's average is dragged down by its lower Vulkan result. The FirePro M4150 also holds a higher percentile ranking (24th versus 20th), indicating that it outperforms a larger share of the overall GPU population.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce 920M scores 3725. The FirePro leads by 7.7%.

Q: How does the GeForce 920M compare to integrated graphics like Intel HD Graphics 530?

A: The GeForce 920M averages 3287 points across its recorded benchmarks. The Intel HD Graphics 530 averages 3332 points, which is 1.4% higher. The GeForce 920M is therefore slightly behind this particular integrated solution in average score.

Q: Does the GeForce 920M have any benchmark result the FirePro M4150 lacks?

A: Yes. The GeForce 920M has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 2849. The FirePro M4150 has no recorded Vulkan benchmark in the database.

Q: What is the FirePro M4150's closest competitor according to the database?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M averages 4033 points, only 0.5% higher than the FirePro M4150's 4013. The AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 is 0.9% lower, and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 is 1.2% lower.

Q: How large is the gap in memory bandwidth between the two GPUs?

A: The FirePro M4150 has a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, while the GeForce 920M has 14.40 GB/s. The FirePro's bandwidth is more than four times higher.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 920M has a pixel rate of 7.632 GPixel/s, compared to the FirePro M4150's 5.720 GPixel/s. The GeForce leads in this metric.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification category. The AMD FirePro M4150 uses a 128-bit memory bus with 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory, while the NVIDIA GeForce 920M uses a 64-bit bus with 2048 MB of DDR3 memory. Memory bandwidth reflects this: the FirePro M4150 delivers 64.00 GB/s, while the GeForce 920M delivers only 14.40 GB/s. The memory clock also differs: the FirePro runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the GeForce runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective).

Shading unit counts are identical at 384, but the texture mapping unit counts differ. The FirePro M4150 has 24 TMUs, while the GeForce 920M has 32 TMUs. Both have 8 ROPs. The resulting fill rates favor the GeForce: its pixel rate is 7.632 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 30.53 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance also favors the GeForce: 732.7 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS.

The GeForce 920M has a recorded TDP of 33 W, while the FirePro M4150 has no TDP listed in the database. The FirePro M4150 uses an MXM Module slot width, while the GeForce 920M is classified as an IGP (integrated graphics processor). The GeForce 920M lists no power connectors, while the FirePro M4150 has no power connector data recorded. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface.

The transistor counts differ: the FirePro M4150 has 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the GeForce 920M has 1,020 million transistors on an 87 mm² die. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The FirePro M4150 has a higher transistor density at 12.3M per mm², versus 11.7M per mm² for the GeForce.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro M4150 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip. It belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation and was released on October 15, 2013. Its predecessor is FirePro Mobility, and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. The GeForce 920M uses the Kepler 2.0 architecture with the GK208B chip. It belongs to the GeForce 900M generation and was released on March 12, 2015. Its predecessor is GeForce 800M, and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

Both GPUs support DirectX 12, but with different feature levels. The FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GeForce 920M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6. The Vulkan support versions differ slightly: the FirePro M4150 lists Vulkan 1.2.170, while the GeForce 920M lists Vulkan 1.2.175.

Both GPUs are end-of-life products. The FirePro M4150 has no base or boost clock recorded, while the GeForce 920M has a base clock of 954 MHz and a boost clock of 954 MHz. The GeForce 920M's memory operates at 1800 Mbps effective, while the FirePro M4150's memory operates at 4 Gbps effective. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores recorded in the database.

The FirePro M4150's display outputs are described as portable device dependent, as are the GeForce 920M's. Neither GPU has a recorded launch MSRP. The FirePro M4150 has no power connector information, while the GeForce 920M explicitly lists no power connectors, consistent with its IGP form factor.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear winner for OpenCL compute workloads: the AMD FirePro M4150. Its 4013 OpenCL score beats the GeForce 920M's 3725 by 7.7%, and its average score of 4013 is roughly 22% higher than the GeForce's 3287 average. The FirePro also ranks higher in the overall GPU distribution, sitting at the 24th percentile versus the GeForce's 20th. For users whose primary concern is OpenCL compute performance, the FirePro M4150 is the stronger choice based on recorded data.

The NVIDIA GeForce 920M has its own advantages in the specifications. Its higher pixel rate (7.632 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s) and texture rate (30.53 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s) suggest better performance in fill-rate-bound graphics scenarios. Its FP32 throughput of 732.7 GFLOPS exceeds the FirePro's 549.1 GFLOPS. It also has twice the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1 GB), though with a much narrower 64-bit bus and slower DDR3 memory. The GeForce 920M additionally has a recorded Vulkan score of 2849, which the FirePro cannot match because no Vulkan result exists for it.

Users who need maximum memory bandwidth should choose the FirePro M4150. Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is more than four times the GeForce 920M's 14.40 GB/s, a decisive advantage for bandwidth-sensitive workloads. Users who prioritize fill rate, raw FP32 compute, or Vulkan compute should favor the GeForce 920M. The GeForce also has a lower power profile with a 33 W TDP, whereas the FirePro has no TDP recorded.

The GeForce 920M's nearest rivals include integrated graphics like the Intel HD Graphics 530, which scores 1.4% higher on average. This places the GeForce 920M at the edge of the discrete GPU market. The FirePro M4150, by contrast, competes with midrange parts like the GeForce GT 755M and Quadro K2000, holding its own within 1.2% of those scores. The data suggests the FirePro M4150 is the more capable compute part overall, while the GeForce 920M offers a broader feature set in terms of API coverage and graphics-oriented rates, but with a lower aggregate benchmark standing.