AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Comparison

The AMD FirePro M4150 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 represent two distinct eras of mobile graphics. The data shows a decisive performance gap, with the GTX 1050 emerging as the dominant force in compute workloads. However, the comparison reveals more than just a raw speed difference; it highlights a fundamental shift in GPU architecture, memory technology, and target application between a professional mobile workstation part and a mainstream consumer gaming GPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable benchmark in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it paints a stark picture. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 scores 15,233, while the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4,013. This represents a delta of -73.7% for the AMD part, meaning the GTX 1050 is a staggering 3.8 times faster in this compute-focused test. This is not a marginal improvement; it is a generational leap in raw parallel processing capability.

The GTX 1050's victory in OpenCL is consistent with its broader benchmark profile. Its average benchmark score of 3,629 is lower than its Geekbench OpenCL score, which is expected given the inclusion of other, more demanding tests like Passmark's G3D suite. In the Passmark G3D test, the GTX 1050 scores 5,028, and in Geekbench Vulkan it reaches 8,995. These results indicate a well-rounded compute and graphics processor. The FirePro M4150's only available benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL score of 4,013, places it in a competitive position against its immediate rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4,033) and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3,977), with deltas of -0.5% and +0.9%, respectively. This shows that while the FirePro is competitive within its own generation, it is absolutely outclassed by the newer Pascal architecture.

Looking at the GTX 1050's own rival list provides further context. Its average score of 3,629 is closely matched by the likes of the NVIDIA GeForce GT 735M (3,616) and the AMD Radeon HD 6770 (3,649), with deltas of just 0.4% and -0.5%. This is a curious data point, suggesting that the GTX 1050's average score is dragged down by its performance in specific legacy tests like Passmark DirectX 9 (83) and Passmark DirectX 10 (24). In contrast, its modern API performance is significantly stronger, as evidenced by its Vulkan score. The FirePro M4150, with its 24th percentile ranking among all GPUs, is firmly in the lower performance tier. The GTX 1050, despite having a lower overall percentile (21st), demonstrates a much higher peak performance in modern compute loads, indicating that the average score is skewed by its poor showing in older, single-threaded DirectX tests.

Architecture Differences

The performance chasm between these two GPUs is rooted in their fundamentally different architectures. The AMD FirePro M4150 is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture using a 28 nm process at TSMC. Its chip, codenamed "Opal," packs 950 million transistors onto a 77 mm² die. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050, on the other hand, utilizes the newer Pascal architecture, manufactured on Samsung's 14 nm process. Its GP107 chip is a much larger and more complex piece of silicon, containing 3,300 million transistors on a 132 mm² die. This difference in process technology and die size is a primary driver of the GTX 1050's superior performance and efficiency.

The core configurations are equally disparate. The FirePro M4150 features 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). In contrast, the GTX 1050 has 640 shading units, 40 TMUs, and a significantly higher 32 ROPs. This 1.67x increase in shaders and 4x increase in ROPs directly translates to the 3.4x higher pixel rate (46.56 GPixel/s vs. 5.720 GPixel/s) and 3.4x higher texture rate (58.20 GTexel/s vs. 17.16 GTexel/s) observed in the GTX 1050. The FP32 performance is also dramatically different, with the GTX 1050 delivering 1.862 TFLOPS compared to the FirePro's 549.1 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture further widens the gap. While both use GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, the GTX 1050 operates its memory at 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective), resulting in a bandwidth of 112.1 GB/s. The FirePro M4150's memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding a much lower 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 1050 also doubles the memory capacity to 2 GB from 1 GB. This is not just about capacity; the higher clock speed is crucial for feeding the more powerful GPU core. The GTX 1050 also has a much higher base clock of 1354 MHz and a boost clock of 1455 MHz, while the FirePro M4150's clock speeds are not listed in the data.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in compute workloads like OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 is overwhelmingly faster. In the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, it scores 15,233, which is 3.8 times higher than the AMD FirePro M4150's score of 4,013. The data indicates a delta of -73.7% for the AMD part.

Q: How does the AMD FirePro M4150 compare to its own generation of rivals?

A: The FirePro M4150 is very competitive within its peer group. Its Geekbench OpenCL score of 4,013 is nearly identical to the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4,033), which is only 0.5% faster, and it is slightly ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3,977) by 0.9%.

Q: What is the significance of the GTX 1050's average benchmark score being lower than its OpenCL score?

A: The GTX 1050's average score of 3,629 is influenced by its very low scores in legacy DirectX benchmarks, such as Passmark DirectX 9 (83) and DirectX 10 (24). Its performance in modern compute APIs, like OpenCL (15,233) and Vulkan (8,995), is far superior, indicating a focus on modern workloads.

Q: Is the GTX 1050 a better choice for a desktop replacement or a mobile workstation?

A: The data suggests the GTX 1050 is a far more powerful GPU. Its higher transistor count, more shading units, and faster memory give it a massive performance advantage. However, the FirePro M4150's "MXM Module" slot width suggests it is designed for specialized mobile workstations, while the GTX 1050's "Dual-slot" design and 145 mm length indicate a more conventional desktop or larger laptop form factor.

Q: How do their API support levels differ?

A: Both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6. The key difference is in the feature level and Vulkan support. The GTX 1050 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro M4150 supports an older feature level of DirectX 12 (11_1). Furthermore, the GTX 1050 supports Vulkan 1.4, a much newer version than the FirePro's Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro M4150 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Pascal |

| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Samsung |

| Transistors | 950 million | 3,300 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 132 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 25.0M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not specified | 1354 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 1455 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 1752 MHz (7 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 112.1 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 640 |

| TMUs | 24 | 40 |

| ROPs | 8 | 32 |

| Pixel Rate | 5.720 GPixel/s | 46.56 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.16 GTexel/s | 58.20 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 549.1 GFLOPS | 1.862 TFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not specified | 29.10 GFLOPS (1:64) |

| TDP | Not specified | 75 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Dual-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not specified | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not specified | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.0, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a |

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

| Vulkan Support | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Dimensions (Length) | Not specified | 145 mm (5.7 inches) |

| Dimensions (Height) | Not specified | 111 mm (4.4 inches) |

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

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 109 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 is the clear winner in almost every measurable performance metric. Its victory in the single head-to-head compute benchmark is decisive, and its architectural advantages in shader count, ROPs, memory bandwidth, and clock speeds make it the superior choice for any modern, demanding workload. The data shows it is specifically designed for high-throughput tasks like modern gaming and GPU-accelerated compute, as evidenced by its strong Vulkan score of 8,995 and its 1.862 TFLOPS of FP32 power. Its 32 ROPs and high pixel rate of 46.56 GPixel/s make it far more capable at handling high resolutions and complex visual effects than the FirePro M4150.

The AMD FirePro M4150, while not competitive with the GTX 1050, shows its own specific strengths within its historical context. Its benchmark score of 4,013 places it on par with its direct contemporaries, like the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2. This indicates that for its time, it was a capable entry-level professional mobile solution. Its "MXM Module" form factor is a defining characteristic, indicating its design for mobile workstations where serviceability and a specific form factor are required, rather than raw performance. The FirePro's only advantage is in its legacy API support, but even here it falls short of the GTX 1050, which supports newer versions of both DirectX and Vulkan. In essence, the FirePro M4150 wins in the niche category of being a low-profile, replaceable module for older professional laptops, while the GTX 1050 wins in every category of raw performance and modern feature support.