AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M and AMD FirePro M4150 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions aimed at very different priorities, despite their similar overall performance class. The data shows the GTX 460M edges out the FirePro M4150 in raw compute benchmarks, but the two cards are built on radically different architectures with distinct feature sets. This analysis breaks down the specification sheets and benchmark results to determine which GPU suits specific workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher raw benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4,282 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4,013. This gives the GTX 460M a 6.7% lead in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The GTX 460M sits 0.3% behind the AMD FirePro W2100 (4,295) and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon Vega 3 (4,268). The FirePro M4150 is 0.5% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4,033) and 0.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3,977).

Q: Which GPU has a more modern feature set?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1), while the NVIDIA GTX 460M only supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and lacks Vulkan support. Both offer OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between these chips?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150, built on a 28 nm process, has a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The NVIDIA GTX 460M, on a 40 nm process, has a density of just 4.9M per mm².

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro M4150 achieves 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, slightly higher than the GTX 460M's 60.00 GB/s. This is despite the FirePro having a narrower 128-bit bus compared to the GTX 460M's 192-bit bus.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M and AMD FirePro M4150 are listed as end-of-life products in the data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is generational. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M uses the GF106 chip based on the Fermi architecture, fabricated on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9M per mm². The GTX 460M belongs to the GeForce 400M generation, with its predecessor being the GeForce 300M and its successor the GeForce 500M.

The AMD FirePro M4150 uses the Opal chip based on GCN 1.0 architecture, also fabricated at TSMC but on a much newer 28 nm process. It contains 950 million transistors on a significantly smaller 77 mm² die, achieving a much higher transistor density of 12.3M per mm². This part belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Mx100) generation, succeeding FirePro Mobility and being succeeded by Radeon Pro Mobile.

The core configurations differ substantially. The GTX 460M features 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster operation units (ROPs). The FirePro M4150 has more shading units at 384, but fewer TMUs at 24 and significantly fewer ROPs at just 8. This suggests the NVIDIA part is better suited for fill-rate-bound tasks, while the AMD part has more raw shader throughput potential.

Memory subsystems also diverge. The GTX 460M uses 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, while the FirePro M4150 uses 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. Despite the narrower bus, the FirePro's memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus the GTX 460M's 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective), giving the AMD card a slight bandwidth edge at 64.00 GB/s versus 60.00 GB/s.

Interface support differs as well. The GTX 460M uses PCIe 2.0 x16, while the FirePro M4150 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The AMD card also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, a feature completely absent from the NVIDIA part. Both cards are MXM modules with portable-device-dependent display outputs.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a clear, if narrow, winner: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark test with a 6.7% advantage over the AMD FirePro M4150. The GTX 460M also holds a higher percentile ranking at 25 versus 24 for the FirePro M4150. For users prioritizing raw OpenCL compute performance, the GTX 460M is the safer choice.

However, the AMD FirePro M4150 should not be dismissed. It offers modern API support that the GTX 460M simply cannot match, including Vulkan 1.2.170 and a higher DirectX feature level. The FirePro M4150 also has a more efficient manufacturing process, with 28 nm versus 40 nm, and nearly triple the transistor density. For workloads that leverage Vulkan or need the newer DirectX feature set, the AMD card is the only viable option between these two.

The choice depends on what matters more: raw benchmark score or feature compatibility. The GTX 460M wins on numbers, but the FirePro M4150 wins on architectural modernity. Given both are end-of-life products, users should prioritize the specific API requirements of their software over the marginal performance difference.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every major specification category. The process node is a key divider: NVIDIA uses 40 nm, AMD uses 28 nm. This leads to a die size of 238 mm² for the GTX 460M versus just 77 mm² for the FirePro M4150. Transistor counts are 1,170 million and 950 million respectively, resulting in transistor densities of 4.9M and 12.3M per mm².

Memory configurations diverge on size and bus width. The GTX 460M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit interface, while the FirePro M4150 has 1024 MB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit interface. Memory clocks also differ: 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for AMD. Despite these differences, bandwidth is close at 60.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s.

Core counts show a trade-off. The GTX 460M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. The FirePro M4150 has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This results in different throughput rates: the GTX 460M achieves 5.400 GPixel/s pixel rate and 21.60 GTexel/s texture rate, while the FirePro M4150 achieves 5.720 GPixel/s and 17.16 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 518.4 GFLOPS for NVIDIA versus 549.1 GFLOPS for AMD.

The TDP is listed as 50 W for the GTX 460M, while no TDP value is provided for the FirePro M4150. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors listed for the GTX 460M (null for the FirePro). The bus interface differs: PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD. API support shows the biggest generation gap: DirectX 12 (11_0) versus 12 (11_1), and Vulkan absent versus 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this test, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4,282 points against the AMD FirePro M4150's 4,013 points. The delta is 6.7% in favor of NVIDIA, and this represents the sole head-to-head win for either card, with the GTX 460M taking 1 win and the FirePro M4150 taking 0.

This 6.7% margin places the two cards in the same performance neighborhood but not the same tier. The GTX 460M's score of 4,282 puts it 1.2% behind the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4,241 is actually ahead by 1%, so the GTX 460M is 1% ahead of the K3000M) and 1.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4,335). On the AMD side, the FirePro M4150's 4,013 score places it 1.2% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3,964) and 1.4% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3,957).

The performance gap between the two cards is smaller than the architectural differences suggest. The GTX 460M's higher pixel rate (5.400 GPixel/s) and texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s) contribute to its win, but the FirePro M4150 counters with higher FP32 throughput (549.1 GFLOPS versus 518.4 GFLOPS) and higher pixel rate (5.720 GPixel/s). The benchmark result indicates that NVIDIA's higher TMU and ROP counts matter more for OpenCL performance than AMD's raw shader count advantage.

Where Each One Wins

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M wins on: Raw benchmark performance. The 6.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the decisive factor. The GTX 460M also has superior texture throughput at 21.60 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s, and more ROPs (24 versus 8) which helps with fill-rate-bound workloads. Its larger memory pool of 1536 MB versus 1024 MB provides more headroom for large datasets, and the wider 192-bit bus offers better memory parallelism even if raw bandwidth is slightly lower. The 50 W TDP is also a defined specification, giving system builders a known power envelope.

AMD FirePro M4150 wins on: Modern feature support and efficiency. The Vulkan 1.2.170 support is a significant advantage for any application that uses this API, which the GTX 460M cannot run at all. The higher DirectX 12 feature level (11_1 versus 11_0) provides better compatibility with newer Windows applications. The 28 nm process node makes the chip dramatically more efficient in terms of transistor density (12.3M per mm² versus 4.9M per mm²), and the smaller 77 mm² die size suggests lower manufacturing complexity. The FirePro M4150 also wins on memory bandwidth at 64.00 GB/s versus 60.00 GB/s, and offers slightly higher FP32 throughput at 549.1 GFLOPS versus 518.4 GFLOPS.

For users who need maximum benchmark scores and have no Vulkan requirements, the GTX 460M is the pick. For users who need modern API support or care about architectural efficiency, the FirePro M4150 is the only choice. The data does not support a single universal recommendation, as the two cards represent different eras of GPU design with different strengths.