AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA GeForce 930M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 930M and AMD FirePro M4150 are two end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from different architectural lineages, targeting distinct segments of the laptop market. While both are built on a 28 nm TSMC process and share identical core counts, their benchmark results reveal a clear performance hierarchy. The data shows the GeForce 930M holds a decisive lead in the only head-to-head benchmark available, but the FirePro M4150 counters with superior memory bandwidth and higher raw throughput figures. This analysis breaks down their architectural differences, benchmark performance, and use-case strengths based solely on the provided specifications.

FAQ

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

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 930M wins decisively, scoring 5046 against the AMD FirePro M4150's 4013. This represents a 25.7% advantage for the NVIDIA part in this compute-focused test.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The GeForce 930M has an average benchmark score of 4388, placing it in the 26th percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro M4150 averages 4013, sitting in the 24th percentile. The 930M's score is 9.3% higher than the M4150's average.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU based on average score?

A: The GeForce 930M's closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 645M, which scores 4411 and is 0.5% ahead. The FirePro M4150's nearest competitor is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, which scores 4033 and is 0.5% faster.

Q: Which GPU has more memory, and what type?

A: The GeForce 930M has 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, while the FirePro M4150 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. Despite having less capacity, the M4150's GDDR5 memory provides significantly more bandwidth.

Q: What is the transistor count and die size for each chip?

A: The GeForce 930M uses the GM108S chip with 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The FirePro M4150 uses the Opal chip with 950 million transistors, also on a 77 mm² die. The 930M has a slightly higher transistor density at 13.2M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm².

Q: What are the API support differences between the two?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. However, the GeForce 930M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro M4150 is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. The M4150 has a slightly higher DirectX feature level at 12 (11_1) compared to the 930M's 12 (11_0).

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two mobile GPUs is fundamental. The GeForce 930M is built on NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture, specifically the GM108S chip, while the FirePro M4150 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process, which is where the similarities begin.

The transistor counts differ slightly, with the GeForce 930M packing 1,020 million transistors versus 950 million on the FirePro. Both chips measure exactly 77 mm² in die size, but the 930M achieves a higher transistor density of 13.2M per mm² compared to the M4150's 12.3M per mm². This density advantage reflects the more efficient Maxwell design.

Core configurations are identical on paper: both feature 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation pipelines. However, clock behavior diverges sharply. The GeForce 930M has a fixed base and boost clock of 549 MHz, with no dynamic range. The FirePro M4150's clock speeds are not listed in the data, leaving its operating frequency unspecified, though its memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), substantially higher than the 930M's memory clock of 800 MHz (1600 Mbps effective).

The memory subsystems represent the most significant architectural divergence. The GeForce 930M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 12.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro M4150 counters with 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s — exactly five times the bandwidth. This difference is critical for memory-bound workloads.

In terms of API support, the GeForce 930M offers Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro M4150 is capped at Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the M4150 has a slightly higher DirectX feature level (11_1 vs 11_0). The physical form factor also differs: the 930M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no power connectors, while the M4150 is an MXM module, indicating different intended installation methods.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance. The results are unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce 930M scores 5046, while the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013. This yields a 25.7% delta in favor of the 930M, a substantial margin that dominates the head-to-head comparison.

This single benchmark result shows that the GeForce 930M's compute capabilities significantly outpace the FirePro M4150's, despite the M4150's superior memory bandwidth and higher theoretical pixel and texture rates. The 930M's Maxwell architecture appears to extract better compute efficiency from its lower-clocked cores, at least in this OpenCL workload.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the GeForce 930M's average score of 4388 places it in the 26th percentile of all GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the GeForce GT 645M at 4411 (0.5% faster), the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 at 4360 (0.7% slower), and the GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 at 4335 (1.2% slower). The FirePro M4150's average of 4013 puts it in the 24th percentile, with rivals like the GeForce GT 755M at 4033 (0.5% faster) and the Radeon HD 6850 X2 at 3977 (0.9% slower).

The benchmark data shows the GeForce 930M operates in a higher performance tier than the FirePro M4150. The 930M's average score is roughly 9.3% above the M4150's, and its OpenCL score is 25.7% higher. The M4150's theoretical advantages in pixel rate (5.720 GPixel/s vs 4.392 GPixel/s) and texture rate (17.16 GTexel/s vs 13.18 GTexel/s) do not translate into benchmark wins, suggesting that the 930M's architecture handles the workload more efficiently.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification, with only a few shared attributes. Here are the key differences:

• Chip and Architecture: The GeForce 930M uses the GM108S chip with Maxwell architecture, while the FirePro M4150 uses the Opal chip with GCN 1.0.
• Transistor Count: 1,020 million (930M) versus 950 million (M4150).
• Transistor Density: 13.2M / mm² (930M) versus 12.3M / mm² (M4150).
• Base Clock: 549 MHz (930M) versus not specified (M4150).
• Boost Clock: 549 MHz (930M) versus not specified (M4150).
• Memory Clock: 800 MHz / 1600 Mbps effective (930M) versus 1000 MHz / 4 Gbps effective (M4150).
• Memory Size: 2 GB (930M) versus 1024 MB (M4150).
• Memory Type: DDR3 (930M) versus GDDR5 (M4150).
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit (930M) versus 128 bit (M4150).
• Memory Bandwidth: 12.80 GB/s (930M) versus 64.00 GB/s (M4150).
• Pixel Rate: 4.392 GPixel/s (930M) versus 5.720 GPixel/s (M4150).
• Texture Rate: 13.18 GTexel/s (930M) versus 17.16 GTexel/s (M4150).
• FP32 Performance: 421.6 GFLOPS (930M) versus 549.1 GFLOPS (M4150).
• TDP: 33 W (930M) versus not specified (M4150).
• Slot Width: IGP (930M) versus MXM Module (M4150).
• Power Connectors: None (930M) versus not specified (M4150).
• Vulkan Version: 1.4 (930M) versus 1.2.170 (M4150).
• DirectX Feature Level: 12 (11_0) (930M) versus 12 (11_1) (M4150).
• Release Date: 2015-03-12 (930M) versus 2013-10-15 (M4150).
• Predecessor: GeForce 800M (930M) versus FirePro Mobility (M4150).
• Successor: GeForce 10 Mobile (930M) versus Radeon Pro Mobile (M4150).

Shared specifications include the 28 nm TSMC process, 77 mm² die size, 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, 8 ROPs, PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, and OpenGL 4.6 support. Neither GPU has a launch MSRP listed, and both are marked as end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 930M wins the only head-to-head benchmark, and its overall average score is higher. In compute-heavy tasks as measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the 930M is 25.7% faster, making it the clear choice for general-purpose GPU compute workloads. Its Maxwell architecture appears better optimized for this type of workload, despite running at a modest 549 MHz clock.

The 930M also wins on memory capacity, offering 2 GB versus the M4150's 1024 MB. This could be an advantage in applications that require larger framebuffers, such as higher-resolution textures or multiple display outputs. Its lower TDP of 33 W and IGP form factor make it suitable for thinner, more power-efficient laptops, whereas the M4150's MXM module form factor suggests use in larger, potentially more upgradeable systems.

The FirePro M4150 wins on raw theoretical throughput metrics. Its FP32 performance of 549.1 GFLOPS is 30.2% higher than the 930M's 421.6 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate of 5.720 GPixel/s exceeds the 930M's 4.392 GPixel/s by 30.2%, and its texture rate of 17.16 GTexel/s is 30.2% above the 930M's 13.18 GTexel/s. These figures suggest the M4150 could excel in fill-rate-bound scenarios, such as certain older games or pixel-heavy rendering tasks, despite losing the OpenCL benchmark.

The M4150's memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s is five times that of the 930M's 12.80 GB/s, which could benefit memory-intensive workloads that the OpenCL test does not capture. Its GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus provide a significant data throughput advantage. The M4150 also has a higher DirectX feature level (11_1 vs 11_0) and was released earlier in October 2013, giving it a longer production history.

In summary, the GeForce 930M is the better choice for compute performance and overall benchmark scores, while the FirePro M4150 offers superior memory bandwidth, higher theoretical throughput rates, and a more expandable MXM form factor. The 930M's Vulkan 1.4 support provides better forward compatibility for modern applications, while the M4150's higher FP32 and fill rates may serve specific legacy or specialized workloads better.