AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA GeForce 920MX Comparison

# AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA GeForce 920MX

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX edges out the AMD FirePro M4150 in the Geekbench OpenCL test, scoring 4068 versus 4013, a margin of 1.4% in NVIDIA's favor.

Q: How do these two mobile graphics processors compare in overall performance percentiles?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 sits in the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX sits slightly lower in the 21st percentile. Despite the NVIDIA card's higher single-test score, its average benchmark score of 3528 is dragged down by its Vulkan result of 2987.

Q: What is the difference in memory capacity and type?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, providing only 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX has a base clock of 965 MHz and a boost clock of 993 MHz. The AMD FirePro M4150 has no listed base or boost clock in the database, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes of these two chips?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150's Opal chip contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX's GM108S chip contains 1,020 million transistors on the same 77 mm² die size.

Q: Which GPU supports more modern API versions?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA card has the newer Vulkan version, while the AMD card has a slightly higher DirectX feature level.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro M4150 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip, representing AMD's first-generation Graphics Core Next design. This architecture introduced a unified shader design that emphasized compute throughput alongside traditional graphics rendering. The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX, by contrast, uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip, NVIDIA's second-generation Maxwell implementation focused on power efficiency and improved performance per clock.

Both chips are fabricated on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, and both measure exactly 77 mm² in die area. However, the transistor counts differ: AMD packs 950 million transistors into that space (12.3 million per mm²), while NVIDIA fits 1,020 million transistors (13.2 million per mm²). The higher transistor density in the NVIDIA chip suggests a more compact logic design, consistent with Maxwell's efficiency-focused engineering.

The compute resource allocation differs significantly between the two. The AMD FirePro M4150 deploys 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX uses 256 shading units but retains the same 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. Despite having fewer shading units, the NVIDIA card achieves higher pixel and texture rates: 7.944 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, and 23.83 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s. This indicates the Maxwell architecture extracts more throughput per shader, possibly through better scheduling and higher clock utilization.

Memory architecture represents a fundamental divergence. The AMD card uses GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, achieving 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, with a dramatically lower 14.40 GB/s bandwidth. This 4.4x bandwidth deficit is a major architectural difference that could impact memory-intensive workloads, even though the NVIDIA card carries twice the capacity at 2 GB versus 1 GB.

The power profiles differ as well: the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX has a listed TDP of 16 W with no power connectors required, while the AMD FirePro M4150 has no TDP listed in the database. Both use MXM modules and PCIe 3.0 x8 interfaces, and both have display outputs that are portable device dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records one direct head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this measurement, the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX scores 4068 against the AMD FirePro M4150's 4013. The delta percentage of -1.4% (from AMD's perspective) indicates the NVIDIA card wins by a narrow margin. This is a close result, with the two GPUs essentially trading blows within a margin that could be considered measurement noise.

Context from the nearest rivals helps interpret this result. The AMD FirePro M4150's OpenCL score of 4013 places it within 0.5% of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033), 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977), 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964), and 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957). This clustering suggests the FirePro M4150 performs in a tightly packed band of mid-range mobile and older desktop GPUs.

The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX's OpenCL score of 4068 places it 1.8% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 545 (3594), 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation (3596), 2.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (3616), and 2.7% behind the NVIDIA Quadro 2000M (3434). Interestingly, the RTX 5000 Mobile Ada Generation appears in this rival list with a surprisingly low average score, which likely reflects the quirks of the benchmark database rather than actual performance equivalence.

However, the NVIDIA card's average benchmark score tells a different story. Its average of 3528 is significantly lower than its OpenCL score because it also has a Geekbench Vulkan result of 2987. This Vulkan score drags the average down by roughly 13%, revealing that the 920MX's performance is highly API-dependent. The AMD FirePro M4150 has no Vulkan benchmark recorded, so its average score of 4013 matches its OpenCL result exactly.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture. In the single recorded head-to-head OpenCL benchmark, the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX wins by 1.4%, scoring 4068 versus 4013. This is a narrow victory, hardly a decisive margin. However, the NVIDIA card's broader benchmark profile includes a Vulkan score of 2987, which suggests its performance varies substantially across different compute APIs.

For users prioritizing raw OpenCL compute performance, the two GPUs are essentially equivalent, with the NVIDIA card holding a slight edge. The AMD FirePro M4150's higher percentile ranking (24th versus 21st) reflects its consistent performance in its single benchmark, while the NVIDIA card's lower percentile is pulled down by its weaker Vulkan showing.

The memory situation complicates any simple verdict. The AMD card's GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth provides over four times the memory bandwidth of the NVIDIA card's DDR3 at 14.40 GB/s. For memory-bound workloads, the AMD card should theoretically have a significant advantage, even if the recorded OpenCL benchmark does not show it.

The NVIDIA card counters with double the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1 GB), which matters for larger datasets and higher-resolution textures. The NVIDIA card also has a higher pixel rate (7.944 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s) and texture rate (23.83 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s), indicating better raw fill-rate performance despite fewer shading units.

For power-sensitive mobile applications, the NVIDIA GeForce 920MX's listed 16 W TDP gives it a clear specification advantage. The AMD card lacks a listed TDP, making direct power comparison impossible from the database.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro M4150 | NVIDIA GeForce 920MX |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |

| Chip | Opal | GM108S |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,020 million |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not listed | 965 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 993 MHz |

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

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

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

| Shading Units | 384 | 256 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.720 GPixel/s | 7.944 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.16 GTexel/s | 23.83 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 549.1 GFLOPS | 508.4 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 16 W |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | 2013-10-15 | 2016-03-24 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Mobility | GeForce 800M |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Mobile | GeForce 10 Mobile |

| OpenCL Score | 4013 | 4068 |

| Average Score | 4013 | 3528 |

| Percentile | 24th | 21st |

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro M4150 wins on memory bandwidth, delivering 64.00 GB/s through its 128-bit GDDR5 interface, a massive 4.4x advantage over the NVIDIA card's 14.40 GB/s. This makes it the better choice for workloads that stream large amounts of data, such as high-resolution texture processing or compute tasks with large working sets. The AMD card also has higher FP32 compute at 549.1 GFLOPS versus 508.4 GFLOPS, a 7.4% advantage in raw floating-point throughput. Its 384 shading units provide more parallel execution resources than the NVIDIA card's 256, and its DirectX 12 (11_1) feature level is slightly higher than the NVIDIA card's 11_0.

The NVIDIA GeForce 920MX counters with superior fill rates: its 7.944 GPixel/s pixel throughput is 39% higher than the AMD card's 5.720 GPixel/s, and its 23.83 GTexel/s texture rate is 39% higher than 17.16 GTexel/s. The NVIDIA card also holds the edge in the recorded OpenCL benchmark, scoring 4068 versus 4013, and it offers double the memory capacity at 2 GB. Its Vulkan 1.4 API support is more recent than the AMD card's Vulkan 1.2.170, and its 16 W TDP provides a clear power envelope for thin-and-light laptops. The NVIDIA card also has higher clock rates (965 MHz base, 993 MHz boost) compared to the AMD card's unlisted clocks.

The release timeline favors the NVIDIA card as well: it launched in 2016 versus the AMD card's 2013 debut, giving it three additional years of architecture refinement. The NVIDIA card's successor path through GeForce 10 Mobile also suggests a smoother upgrade trajectory, while the AMD card's path runs through Radeon Pro Mobile. For users choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the decision hinges on whether memory bandwidth and compute density matter more than fill rate and power efficiency.