AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner: the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX. In the sole head-to-head benchmark available, Geekbench OpenCL, the 940MX scores 4939 against the AMD FirePro M4150's 4013, a 23.1% advantage. The 940MX also holds a higher average benchmark score of 4844 versus 4013, and a superior percentile rank among all GPUs, sitting at the 28th percentile compared to the FirePro M4150's 24th. For any workload that relies on OpenCL compute, the NVIDIA part is the definitive choice.

The AMD FirePro M4150, however, is not without its own strengths. It offers a wider 128-bit memory bus and higher total memory bandwidth, at 64.00 GB/s versus the 940MX's 40.10 GB/s. This suggests that memory-throughput-sensitive tasks, such as certain types of texture streaming or high-resolution frame buffer operations, could be competitive. The FirePro M4150 also supports DirectX 12 (11_1), which is a slightly newer feature level than the 940MX's DirectX 12 (11_0). Users on legacy professional software that favors AMD's GCN architecture might find the M4150 adequate, but the raw compute gap is substantial.

In summary, the 940MX is the pick for general compute performance and higher overall capability. The FirePro M4150 is the pick only if the application specifically benefits from its higher memory bandwidth or the slightly newer DirectX feature level, but the benchmark data does not show it winning any recorded tests.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from entirely different architectural lineages. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX is built on the Maxwell architecture, using the GM107 chip, and belongs to the GeForce 900M generation. The AMD FirePro M4150 is based on GCN 1.0, using the Opal chip, and is part of the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation. Both are manufactured on the same 28 nm process at TSMC, but the silicon itself is very different.

The transistor counts and die sizes reflect this divergence. The 940MX packs 1,870 million transistors onto a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6M per mm². The FirePro M4150 contains only 950 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, with a similar density of 12.3M per mm². This means the 940MX has nearly twice the transistor budget, which it uses for a wider compute layout: 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation units (ROPs). The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Clock behavior also differs. The 940MX has a base clock of 795 MHz and a boost clock of 861 MHz. The FirePro M4150 has no recorded base or boost clock in the database, so its absolute frequency is unknown. Memory clocks differ as well: the 940MX runs its GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the FirePro M4150 runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). Despite the lower memory clock, the FirePro's 128-bit bus gives it a bandwidth advantage, as noted.

The API support is a point of differentiation. The 940MX supports OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro M4150 also supports OpenGL 4.6 but only Vulkan 1.2.170. In DirectX, the FirePro M4150 supports version 12 (11_1), which is one feature level higher than the 940MX's 12 (11_0). This could matter for specific legacy or specialized applications that require the 11_1 feature set.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single direct comparison test between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX scores 4939, while the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013. The delta percentage is 23.1% in favor of the 940MX. This is a substantial margin, indicating that the 940MX is significantly faster in general-purpose compute workloads that use the OpenCL API.

When looking at the average benchmark scores, the picture is consistent. The 940MX averages 4844 across its recorded tests, which include both Geekbench OpenCL (4939) and Geekbench Vulkan (4749). The FirePro M4150 averages 4013, based solely on its single Geekbench OpenCL result. The difference in averages is 831 points, or roughly 20.7%, which aligns with the head-to-head margin.

The percentile ranks reinforce this. The 940MX sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, meaning it outperforms 28% of the database. The FirePro M4150 sits at the 24th percentile. While both are low on the overall performance curve, the 940MX is clearly higher.

For context on the 940MX, its nearest rivals in the database are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (avg score 4855, delta -0.2%), the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (avg score 4867, delta -0.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (avg score 4893, delta -1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (avg score 4791, delta +1.1%). The fact that the RTX 3080 12 GB, a modern high-end card, has a lower average score in this benchmark suite is a quirk of the data, but it does show the 940MX is competitive within its immediate score band.

For the FirePro M4150, its nearest rivals are the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (avg score 4033, delta -0.5%), the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (avg score 3977, delta +0.9%), the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (avg score 3964, delta +1.2%), and the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (avg score 3957, delta +1.4%). The FirePro M4150 is essentially at parity with these cards, being within 1.4% of each.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two GPUs are as follows:

• Chip: NVIDIA GM107 versus AMD Opal.
• Architecture: Maxwell versus GCN 1.0.
• Transistors: 1,870 million versus 950 million.
• Die Size: 148 mm² versus 77 mm².
• Transistor Density: 12.6M / mm² versus 12.3M / mm².
• Base Clock: 795 MHz (940MX) versus none recorded.
• Boost Clock: 861 MHz (940MX) versus none recorded.
• Memory Clock: 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).
• Memory Size: 2 GB versus 1024 MB (1 GB).
• Memory Bus Width: 64 bit versus 128 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: 40.10 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s.
• Shading Units: 512 versus 384.
• TMUs: 32 versus 24.
• Pixel Rate: 6.888 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: 27.55 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: 881.7 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS.
• TDP: 23 W (940MX) versus none recorded.
• Vulkan Version: 1.4 versus 1.2.170.
• DirectX Version: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (11_1).
• Release Date: 2016-06-27 versus 2013-10-15.
• Predecessor: GeForce 800M versus FirePro Mobility.
• Successor: GeForce 10 Mobile versus Radeon Pro Mobile.

Both share the same process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), slot width (MXM Module), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), ROP count (8), and display outputs (Portable Device Dependent). Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX. It delivers 881.7 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 549.1 GFLOPS for the AMD FirePro M4150. This is a 60.5% advantage in raw floating-point throughput.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro M4150 have any memory advantage?

A: Yes. The FirePro M4150 has a 128-bit memory bus and 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, versus the 940MX's 64-bit bus and 40.10 GB/s. It also has 1 GB of memory, while the 940MX has 2 GB.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 940MX has an average benchmark score of 4844, while the FirePro M4150 has an average of 4013. The 940MX is ahead by 831 points, or roughly 20.7%.

Q: What is the difference in their percentile rankings?

A: The 940MX ranks at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro M4150 ranks at the 24th percentile. This indicates the 940MX is higher in the overall performance distribution.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD FirePro M4150 supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are their release dates?

A: The 940MX was released on 2016-06-27, and the FirePro M4150 was released on 2013-10-15. The 940MX is over two years newer.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX wins in every recorded compute test. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4939 is 23.1% higher than the FirePro M4150's 4013. It also wins on raw FP32 throughput (881.7 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS), pixel rate (6.888 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s), and texture rate (27.55 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s). The 940MX also has double the memory capacity (2 GB versus 1 GB), which is beneficial for larger datasets or higher-resolution textures.

The AMD FirePro M4150 wins in memory bandwidth, offering 64.00 GB/s versus the 940MX's 40.10 GB/s. This is a 59.6% advantage in raw memory throughput. For workloads that are heavily memory-bound, such as certain image processing or frame buffer operations where the compute units are idle waiting for data, the FirePro M4150 could be competitive. It also has a slightly newer DirectX feature level (12 (11_1) versus 12 (11_0)), which may provide compatibility with software that requires that specific feature set.

The 940MX is also the better choice for modern API support, with Vulkan 1.4 versus the FirePro M4150's Vulkan 1.2.170. However, the FirePro M4150's higher bandwidth and wider bus could make it a more balanced part for memory-intensive tasks, even if its absolute compute capability is lower. The data does not show a single benchmark where the FirePro M4150 wins, but its architectural profile suggests it is not entirely obsolete.