GPU Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M and AMD FirePro M4150 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions aimed at very different use cases, despite their near-identical average benchmark scores. The data shows the GT 755M holds a commanding lead in raw compute performance, while the FirePro M4150 presents a more specialized feature set. This analysis breaks down where each GPU wins, based strictly on the comparative data provided.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are decisively one-sided in raw performance. In the only head-to-head test available, Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934 against the AMD FirePro M4150's 4013, a 23% advantage. This is a substantial margin, indicating the GT 755M is the clear winner for any compute-heavy application that leverages OpenCL, such as video encoding, physics simulations, or general-purpose GPU computing. The GT 755M also has a Geekbench Metal score of 3132, a test the FirePro M4150 does not have data for, suggesting broader API support for Apple's Metal framework.

However, the AMD FirePro M4150's win is not in raw speed but in architectural context and driver specialization. As a FirePro-branded mobile workstation part, its entire design philosophy is geared toward certified stability and professional application compatibility, not peak throughput. While it loses the compute race, its GCN 1.0 architecture and the FirePro lineage imply a different kind of victory: one of reliability in CAD, DCC, and scientific visualization environments. The average benchmark scores tell a story of near-parity, the GT 755M averages 4033, while the FirePro M4150 averages 4013, a mere 0.5% difference, which is remarkable given the GT 755M's massive OpenCL lead. This implies the FirePro M4150 might excel in other, untested workloads not captured in this data, or that its performance is more consistent across diverse tasks, narrowing the overall gap.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs represent fundamentally different design philosophies from their respective manufacturers. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is built on the Kepler architecture, specifically the GK107 chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. This chip packs 1,270 million transistors onto a 118 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 10.8M / mm². The GT 755M features 384 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 render output units (ROPs). Its clock speeds are set at a 980 MHz base with a 1020 MHz boost, driving a pixel rate of 8.160 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 32.64 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute rating is 783.4 GFLOPS.

The AMD FirePro M4150 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. It is a smaller, denser design: 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a higher transistor density of 12.3M / mm². It matches the GT 755M in shading units with 384, but has fewer TMUs at 24 and half the ROPs at 8. Its clock speeds are not listed, but its resulting rates are lower: a pixel rate of 5.720 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 17.16 GTexel/s. The FP32 performance is 549.1 GFLOPS, which is significantly lower than the NVIDIA part. The FirePro M4150 also lacks the boost clock behavior of the GT 755M, suggesting a fixed-clock or more conservative power profile.

FAQ

Q: Based on average benchmark scores, which GPU is faster?

A: They are statistically tied. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M has an average benchmark score of 4033, while the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013. The delta between them is only 0.5%, placing them in the same performance tier, with both achieving the 24th percentile among all GPUs.

Q: Is there a major performance difference in any specific test?

A: Yes, in the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M scores 4934 compared to the AMD FirePro M4150's 4013. This gives the GT 755M a 23% lead in this specific compute workload.

Q: Do these GPUs have the same amount of memory?

A: No. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M comes with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD FirePro M4150 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit memory bus, but the GT 755M has higher bandwidth at 86.40 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s.

Q: Why might the AMD FirePro M4150 be chosen over the faster GT 755M?

A: The data shows the FirePro M4150 is a mobile workstation part with a GCN 1.0 architecture. While its raw compute is lower, its FirePro branding indicates a focus on professional application stability and certification, which can be more valuable than raw speed for specific commercial software.

Q: What are the API differences between the two?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The key difference is in Vulkan support, where the NVIDIA GPU supports version 1.2.175, while the AMD GPU supports version 1.2.170. The NVIDIA GPU also has a Geekbench Metal score, indicating support for Apple's Metal API, whereas the AMD part has no Metal benchmark data.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 has a higher transistor density at 12.3M / mm² on its 77 mm² die, compared to the NVIDIA GT 755M's 10.8M / mm² on its 118 mm² die.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key divergences beyond raw performance:

• Chip & Architecture: NVIDIA uses the GK107 chip with Kepler architecture; AMD uses the Opal chip with GCN 1.0.
• Transistors: NVIDIA packs 1,270 million transistors; AMD has 950 million.
• Die Size: NVIDIA's die is 118 mm²; AMD's is 77 mm².
• Transistor Density: AMD is denser at 12.3M / mm² versus NVIDIA's 10.8M / mm².
• Memory Size: NVIDIA has 2 GB; AMD has 1024 MB.
• Memory Clock: NVIDIA runs at 1350 MHz (5.4 Gbps effective); AMD runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).
• Memory Bandwidth: NVIDIA offers 86.40 GB/s; AMD offers 64.00 GB/s.
• TMUs: NVIDIA has 32; AMD has 24.
• ROPs: NVIDIA has 16; AMD has 8.
• Base/Boost Clock: NVIDIA has a base of 980 MHz and boost of 1020 MHz; AMD lists no clocks.
• Pixel Rate: NVIDIA is 8.160 GPixel/s; AMD is 5.720 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: NVIDIA is 32.64 GTexel/s; AMD is 17.16 GTexel/s.
• FP32 (Compute): NVIDIA is 783.4 GFLOPS; AMD is 549.1 GFLOPS.
• TDP: NVIDIA is rated at 50 W; AMD has no TDP listed.
• Bus Interface: NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x16; AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x8.
• Vulkan Version: NVIDIA supports 1.2.175; AMD supports 1.2.170.
• Release Date: NVIDIA launched on 2013-06-24; AMD launched on 2013-10-15.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark paints a clear picture of compute superiority. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M achieves a score of 4934, while the AMD FirePro M4150 trails significantly at 4013. This results in a 23% win for NVIDIA. This is a substantial gap that underscores the GT 755M's higher FP32 throughput (783.4 GFLOPS vs 549.1 GFLOPS), higher texture fill rate (32.64 GTexel/s vs 17.16 GTexel/s), and superior memory bandwidth (86.40 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s). The GT 755M's higher pixel rate of 8.160 GPixel/s, compared to the FirePro M4150's 5.720 GPixel/s, also contributes to its decisive win in this metric.

Interestingly, this massive OpenCL victory does not translate to a large average score difference. The GT 755M's average benchmark score is 4033, only 0.5% higher than the FirePro M4150's 4013. This suggests that the GT 755M's performance is heavily weighted toward this one compute test, while the FirePro M4150 may have more balanced performance across other unlisted benchmarks. The data implies that the GT 755M is a compute specialist, while the FirePro M4150 holds its own in the aggregate, potentially due to better performance in gaming or other driver-optimized workloads.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs is dictated by the intended workload. The data shows the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M is the outright performance winner in compute tasks. Its 23% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with 2 GB of memory, higher bandwidth (86.40 GB/s), and double the ROPs (16 vs 8), makes it the superior choice for any user prioritizing raw processing power, GPU-accelerated applications, or higher-resolution texture work. Its 50 W TDP, while not low, is a defined power envelope for the MXM module.

The AMD FirePro M4150, despite losing the benchmark war, is not without merit. Its higher transistor density (12.3M / mm²) and smaller die (77 mm²) indicate a more efficient design. The FirePro naming convention implies a focus on professional reliability, which is a qualitative factor not captured in the performance scores. For users running certified professional applications where stability is paramount over raw speed, the FirePro M4150's GCN 1.0 architecture and workstation lineage could be the deciding factor. The average score parity (4013 vs 4033) further suggests that in real-world mixed workloads, the difference may be imperceptible, making the FirePro a viable option for those who value its professional pedigree. Ultimately, the GT 755M wins on performance, while the FirePro M4150 wins on architectural specialization.