AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains a single directly comparable measurement between these two mobile graphics processors: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this benchmark, the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M scores 3107 points. That puts the AMD part ahead by 29.2%, a substantial margin for two chips aimed at the same laptop segment.

To put that OpenCL result in context, the FirePro M4150 sits at the 24th percentile of all GPUs in the database. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M, which averages 4033 points, a mere 0.5% higher. The AMD part is effectively neck-and-neck with that higher-tier NVIDIA mobile card. It is also ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 by 0.9% and the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 by 1.2% and the GeForce 830M by 1.4%. None of those deltas exceed 1.5 points, meaning the FirePro M4150's performance cluster is tightly packed around a 3957 to 4033 range.

The GT 730M, meanwhile, averages 3316 points across two recorded benchmark tests. Its OpenCL score of 3107 places it at 20th percentile overall, four points below the FirePro. The NVIDIA part's nearest rival list tells a different story. The Intel HD Graphics 530 sits 0.5% ahead with 3332 points, and the Intel HD Graphics P4600 is 2.2% ahead at 3389. The GeForce 920M trails by 0.9% at 3287, and the GeForce GT 640 sits 3.3% behind at 3210. The GT 730M is competitive with integrated graphics and low-end discrete parts, rather than the mid-range group the FirePro M4150 matches.

The GT 730M does have a second recorded benchmark, Geekbench Vulkan, where it scores 3524. That number is higher than its OpenCL result by 13.4%, but there is no matching Vulkan score for the FirePro M4150 in the database, so no direct comparison can be made on that API. The OpenCL test remains the only head-to-head data point, and it clearly favors AMD.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data awards exactly one win to the AMD FirePro M4150 and zero to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M in direct comparisons. That is a clean sweep, but the practical interpretation depends on what the user cares about.

For compute workloads exposed through OpenCL, the FirePro M4150 is the stronger choice. Its 29.2% lead over the GT 730M is significant enough to matter for OpenCL-accelerated tasks like video encoding, image processing, or scientific compute. The FirePro also benefits from being part of a performance bracket that includes the GeForce GT 755M, a card often found in gaming laptops of that era. Being within 0.5% of the GT 755M suggests the FirePro M4150 can handle graphics loads that typically require that higher-tier NVIDIA part.

The GT 730M does not have a direct win in any recorded test, but it does offer some advantages that are not captured by these benchmark numbers. The NVIDIA part's Vulkan score of 3524 stands on its own, and the database shows it is within 1.2% of the GeForce GT 640 desktop card, meaning it is not without raw capability. Users who prioritize Vulkan-based applications might find the GT 730M more versatile on that front, but the absence of an equivalent FirePro Vulkan result prevents a data-backed verdict on that front.

The GT 730M's average benchmark score of 3316 across two tests is 17.4% lower than the FirePro's 4013 average. That gap is consistent with the OpenCL delta and reinforces the AMD part's overall compute advantage. The GT 730M is closer to integrated graphics solutions like the Intel HD 530, which is only 0.5% higher, so it occupies a lower performance tier entirely.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different GPU design families and that explains much of the benchmark gap. The AMD FirePro M4150 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a chip codenamed Opal. It is built on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce GT 730M uses the Kepler architecture on the GK107 chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process, but with more transistors: 1,270 million on a larger 118 mm² die, which works out to a lower density of 10.8 million per mm².

Both GPUs have 384 shading units, which is a notable point of parity. The similarity ends there. The FirePro M4150 has 24 texture mapping units and 8 ROPs, while the GT 730M has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs. That gives NVIDIA a clear edge in texture fillrate and pixel throughput. The GT 730M's texture rate is 23.20 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s for the AMD part, a 35.2% advantage. The pixel rate is 5.800 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, a much closer 1.4% margin for NVIDIA.

Memory configuration also diverges sharply. The FirePro M4150 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with a memory clock of 1000 MHz and 4 Gbps effective, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GT 730M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus, with a 900 MHz memory clock and 1800 Mbps effective, giving only 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 55% deficit in memory bandwidth for NVIDIA, a critical weakness for modern workloads that are bandwidth-sensitive. The FirePro M4150's GDDR5 memory is a major factor in its OpenCL performance advantage.

Compute throughput is nearly identical. The FirePro M4150 delivers 549.1 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the GT 730M delivers 556.8 GFLOPS, a 1.4% difference in NVIDIA's favor. So peak shader math is basically equal, and the benchmark difference comes down to memory bandwidth and driver efficiency rather than raw compute capability.

Feature support also differs. The FirePro M4150 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GT 730M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.175. The Vulkan version is slightly newer on the NVIDIA side, and DirectX feature level 11_1 versus 11_0 could matter for certain games and applications. Both are MXM modules with portable device dependent display outputs, so physical installation is identical. The bus interface differs too: the FirePro runs on PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GT 730M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, a potential bandwidth advantage for NVIDIA in data transfer scenarios, though the memory difference likely overshadows that.

The GT 730M has a listed TDP of 33 W and no power connectors, while the FirePro M4150 has no TDP listed in the database. The NVIDIA part's clock behavior is also documented: both base and boost are 725 MHz. The FirePro has no base or boost clock listed. The NVIDIA part also has a listed transistor count and die size, both higher than the AMD part, and the FirePro M4150's transistor density is higher due to the smaller die.

The Verdict

The data supports a straightforward conclusion: the AMD FirePro M4150 is the stronger GPU for OpenCL compute workloads. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 29.2%, and its average score places it in the company of the GeForce GT 755M, while the GT 730M averages sit near integrated graphics territory. Anyone choosing between these two for OpenCL-heavy laptop workloads should pick the FirePro M4150 without hesitation.

The GT 730M does have redeeming traits captured in the numbers. It has double the memory capacity, a 55% advantage in memory bandwidth on paper, a much higher texture rate, slightly higher FP32, and a newer Vulkan version. Those features might make it better for certain texturing or bandwidth-light tasks, and its 2 GB frame buffer is more generous for modern game textures. But the benchmark data shows a clear overall winner.

The FirePro M4150's GDDR5 memory is the likely differentiator. The 64.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s bandwidth gap is enormous, and OpenCL workloads frequently saturate memory. The 384 shading units on both parts mean compute units are equal, but the AMD part can feed them far more efficiently. The GT 730M's higher TMU and ROP counts do not translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data.

For users who require Vulkan performance, the GT 730M's recorded score of 3524 stands alone, but there is no FirePro Vulkan number to compare, so that remains an open question. The 20th versus 24th percentile ranking also tells the story: the FirePro M4150 is four percentile points higher across all GPUs in the database.

The verdict is a clear win for AMD in the only measurable test, with the GT 730M being a reasonable fallback for users who need more VRAM or who prefer NVIDIA's feature set. Strictly from the recorded data, the FirePro M4150 is the better performer and is the safer recommendation for compute-focused laptop buyers.

The GT 730M's 33 W TDP and PCIe x16 interface are documented advantages for power efficiency and bandwidth, but they do not appear in the benchmark results. The FirePro M4150's lack of a listed TDP means no power draw comparison is possible. The GeForce GT 730M's 725 MHz boost clock is also documented, but the FirePro has no clock data.

The final answer is simple: FirePro M4150 for OpenCL wins 1 to 0, with a 29.2% delta in OpenCL, 24th percentile versus 20th, and a higher average score of 4013 versus 3316. Those are the deciding metrics in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 wins the only recorded head-to-head test, Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 4013 versus 3107, a 29.2% lead.

Q: How close is the FirePro M4150 to the GeForce GT 755M?

**A: The GeForce GT 755M is the FirePro M4150's closest rival at 4033 points, just 0.5% higher, meaning the FirePro M4150 essentially matches a higher-tier NVIDIA mobile part.

Q: What is the GT 730M's closest competitor?

**A: The Intel HD Graphics 530 is the GT 730M's nearest rival at 3332 points, 0.5% ahead, showing the GT 730M sits in integrated graphics territory.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each GPU have?

**A: The FirePro M4150 has 64.00 GB/s bandwidth with 1024 MB of GDDR5, while the GT 730M has 28.80 GB/s bandwidth with 2 GB of DDR3, a 55% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same shading units?

**A: Yes, both have 384 shading units, but the FirePro M4150 has 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs, while the GT 730M has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, giving NVIDIA the higher texture rate of 23.20 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s.

Q: What are the architecture differences between the two chips?

**A: The FirePro M4150 uses GCN 1.0 on 28 nm TSMC, 950 million transistors, 77 mm² die, 12.3M per mm², GDDR5 memory, PCIe 3.0 x8. The GT 730M Kepler on 28 nm TSMC, 1,270 million transistors, 118 mm² die, 10.8M per mm², DDR3 memory, PCIe 3.0 x16, 33 W TDP.

Q: Which GPU has better Vulkan support in the database, and by how much is the GT 730M behind in OpenCL?

**A: The GT 730M has a recorded Geekbench Vulkan score of 3524, which is 13.4% higher than its OpenCL score, but no FirePro Vulkan number exists.

Q: Which GPU does each GPU's benchmark score place it in the overall percentile?

**A: The FirePro M4150 rates 24th percentile across all GPUs in the database with an average score of 4013, while the GT 730M rates 20th percentile with an average of 3316.

Q: How close is the GT 730M to the GeForce GT 640?

**A: The GeForce GT 640 trails the GT 730M by 3.3% at 3210 points, and the Intel HD P4600 is 2.2% ahead at 3389, showing the GT 730M sits between those two.

Specification Differences

The specification list shows where the two GPUs differ in hardware resources and capabilities. The most impactful difference is memory bandwidth. The FirePro M4150 64.00 GB/s GDDR5 memory, while GT 730M 28.80 GB/s DDR3. The GT 730M has double the capacity at 2 GB, 1024 MB is the FirePro M4150's. TMUs and ROPs lean NVIDIA by 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs versus 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. The transistor count GT 730M 1,270 million and 118 mm² die size. FirePro M4150 on the other hand 950 million and 77 mm² die, with 12.3 million per mm² versus 10.8 million per mm². Pixel rate GT 730M 5.800 GPixel/s, FirePro M4150 5.720 GPixel/s, texture rate GT 730M 23.20 GTexel/s and FirePro M4150 17.20 GTexel/s. Shading unit pair 384 each. FP32 output 556.8 GFLOPS GT 730M 549.1 GFLOPS. Clocks and memory GT 725 MHz GT M4150 1000MHz and 4 Gbps effective, GT 730M 900 MHz and 1800 Mbps. Bus interface GT 730M PCIe x16 3.0 vs M4150 x8. TDP GT 730M 33 W and no power connectors. Process node both 28 nm TSMC foundry.

The API support GT 730M has Vulkan 1.2.175 directx 12 (11_1) M4150 and OpenGL 4.6. Display outputs Portable Device Dependent and MXM Module, M4150 and GT 730M Portable Device Dependent and MXM Module, GT 730M PCIe 3.0 x16 M4150 and GT 730M PCIe 3.0 x16 M4150 3.0 x8.1. That is the core list.

The niche differences M4150 1,270 million GT 730m 1,270 million same, 950 million M4150 77 mm² GT 730M 118 mm²12.3 GT 730M 10.8 M4150 8 ROPs 16 ROPs 24 TMUs 32 TMUs 384 shading units each 8 ROPs M4150 32 TMUs GT 730M 16 ROPs 24 TMUs GT 730M 5.800 GPixel/s 5.720 GPixel/s 23.20 GTexel/s 3.20 GTexel/s GT 730M 33 W 1,270 million M4150 950 32 TMUs 32 TMUs 24 TMUs 1024 MB 2 GB GDDR5 DDR3 128 bit 128 bit 64.00 GB/s 28.80 GB/s 725 MHz 725 MHz 900 MHz 1000 MHz 1800 Mbps 4 Gbps 549.1 GFLOPS 556.8 GFLOPS PCIe 3.0 x8 PCIe 3.0 x16 28 nm 28 nm TSMC TSMC 950 million 1,270 million 77 mm² 118 mm² 12.3M per mm² 10.1.1. This is the specification difference section. Vulkan 1.2.175 1.2.170 DirectX 12 (11_0) 11 11_1.

The GT 730M 4013 scores 3107 4013 3316 3524 24th percentile 20th percentile and the GT 730M 33 W TDP. The GT 730M 1,270 M4150 950 1,270 118 mm² GT 730M 725 MHz M4150 1000 MHz GT 730M 900 MHz GT 730M 2 GB M4150 1024 GT 730M 64.00 GB/s GT 730M 28.80 GB/s GT 730M 32 TMUs M4150 24 TMUs GT 730M 16 ROPs M4150 8 ROPs GT 730M 5.800 GPixel/s M4150 5.720 GPixel/s GT 730M 23.20 GTexel/s M4150 17.16 GTexel/s GT 730M 556.8 GFLOPS M4150 549.1 GFLOPS GT 730M PCIe 3.0 x16 M4150 PCIe 3.0 x8.