AMD FirePro M4150 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

AMD FirePro M4150 and NVIDIA GeForce MX110 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they target different eras and design philosophies. The data shows the MX110 holds a clear performance edge in the only shared benchmark, while the FirePro M4150 offers a wider memory bus and higher raw bandwidth. This comparison is strictly about what the numbers say, not about legacy reputation.

The Verdict

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 is the straightforward pick for raw compute performance. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the MX110 scores 4255 against the FirePro M4150’s 4013, a 5.7% advantage. This is a single, decisive win in the head-to-head data. The MX110 also has a Vulkan score of 3413, which the FirePro cannot match, as it lacks a Vulkan benchmark result. If your workload is OpenCL or Vulkan-based, the MX110 is the data-backed choice.

The AMD FirePro M4150 is not without its arguments, but they are not performance arguments. It offers a 128-bit memory bus versus the MX110’s 64-bit bus, and its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is significantly higher than the MX110’s 40.10 GB/s. However, the benchmark data does not translate that bandwidth into a compute win. The FirePro’s only benchmark score places it at the 24th percentile of all GPUs, while the MX110 sits at the 23rd percentile, meaning both are near the bottom of the performance stack. For a user prioritizing memory bandwidth for specific, non-compute tasks, the FirePro has a theoretical edge, but the MX110 wins the only measurable contest.

Pick the MX110 for better OpenCL compute, Vulkan support, and double the memory capacity (2 GB vs 1 GB). Pick the FirePro M4150 only if the wider memory bus and higher bandwidth are critical to a legacy application, and you are willing to accept a lower compute score.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and feature distinct core configurations. The FirePro M4150 is built on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, using the Opal chip, while the MX110 uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and both have the same die size of 77 mm².

The transistor counts are close but not identical: the FirePro packs 950 million transistors, while the MX110 has 1,020 million. This translates to a slightly higher transistor density for the MX110 at 13.2M / mm² versus 12.3M / mm². The core configurations diverge significantly. The FirePro has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). The MX110 has fewer shading units at 256, fewer TMUs at 16, but the same 8 ROPs.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The FirePro’s base and boost clocks are not listed, but its memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The MX110 has a base clock of 978 MHz and a boost clock of 1006 MHz, with memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The MX110’s higher core clocks and newer architecture help it achieve a higher pixel rate of 8.048 GPixel/s versus the FirePro’s 5.720 GPixel/s, despite the FirePro having the same number of ROPs.

Feature support also differs. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, while the MX110 supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The MX110’s Vulkan version is newer, and the benchmark data confirms it is actually usable, with a score of 3413. The FirePro’s Vulkan support is listed but unbenchmarked.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL. The MX110 wins with a score of 4255 against the FirePro’s 4013, a delta of -5.7% for the FirePro. This is a modest but clear margin. The MX110’s advantage likely stems from its higher boost clock and more efficient Maxwell architecture, despite having fewer shading units.

The MX110’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 3413 is a separate data point. The FirePro has no Vulkan score, so this is not a head-to-head contest, but it highlights a functional gap. The MX110 can run Vulkan workloads; the FirePro’s Vulkan capability is unverified in this dataset.

Context from nearest rivals reinforces the picture. The FirePro’s 4013 score sits between the NVIDIA GeForce GT 755M (4033, -0.5%) and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977, +0.9%). The MX110’s 4255 OpenCL score is ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (3823, +0.3%) and the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792, +1.1%). Both GPUs are clustered with low-end parts, but the MX110’s cluster is slightly faster in absolute terms.

The MX110’s average benchmark score is 3834, which is lower than its OpenCL score because the Vulkan score of 3413 drags the average down. The FirePro’s average is 4013, equal to its sole OpenCL score. This means the FirePro has a higher average score, but the MX110 has the better single-test result that matters most for compute.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 4255 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro M4150 scores 4013. The MX110 leads by 5.7%.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro M4150 support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the FirePro lists Vulkan 1.2.170 support, but no Vulkan benchmark score is available in the data. The MX110 lists Vulkan 1.4 and has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 3413.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth?

A: The FirePro M4150 has a 128-bit memory bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The MX110 has a 64-bit bus and 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro has 59.6% more bandwidth by this measure.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have?

A: The FirePro M4150 has 1024 MB (1 GB) of GDDR5 memory. The MX110 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, double the capacity.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The MX110 has a pixel rate of 8.048 GPixel/s, while the FirePro has 5.720 GPixel/s. The MX110 is 40.7% faster in this metric.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life. The FirePro was released in 2013, and the MX110 was released in 2017.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 wins on compute performance, which is the primary measurable metric. It takes the OpenCL benchmark by 5.7%, and it also offers a Vulkan score that the FirePro cannot match. The MX110’s higher boost clock of 1006 MHz, despite fewer shading units, delivers a 40.7% higher pixel rate. It also provides twice the memory capacity at 2 GB, which is useful for larger textures or datasets. For any modern workload that uses OpenCL or Vulkan, the MX110 is the data-backed winner.

The AMD FirePro M4150 wins on memory bandwidth. Its 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth are substantially higher than the MX110’s 64-bit bus and 40.10 GB/s. This could theoretically benefit memory-bound tasks that do not rely on compute shaders. The FirePro also has more shading units (384 vs 256) and more TMUs (24 vs 16), which suggests it might handle certain parallel workloads differently, but the benchmark data does not show a win here. The FirePro’s texture rate of 17.16 GTexel/s is also slightly higher than the MX110’s 16.10 GTexel/s.

Use-case split: choose the MX110 for general compute, gaming, or any application that can leverage Vulkan. Choose the FirePro M4150 only if your specific application is dominated by memory bandwidth and does not require Vulkan or high OpenCL scores. In that narrow scenario, the FirePro’s 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is a legitimate advantage, but it is a niche one.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification except node, die size, and ROP count.

• Shading Units: FirePro M4150 has 384; MX110 has 256.
• TMUs: FirePro M4150 has 24; MX110 has 16.
• ROPs: Both have 8.
• Base Clock: FirePro M4150 is not listed; MX110 is 978 MHz.
• Boost Clock: FirePro M4150 is not listed; MX110 is 1006 MHz.
• Memory Clock: FirePro M4150 is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective); MX110 is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective).
• Memory Size: FirePro M4150 is 1024 MB; MX110 is 2 GB.
• Memory Bus Width: FirePro M4150 is 128 bit; MX110 is 64 bit.
• Memory Bandwidth: FirePro M4150 is 64.00 GB/s; MX110 is 40.10 GB/s.
• Pixel Rate: FirePro M4150 is 5.720 GPixel/s; MX110 is 8.048 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: FirePro M4150 is 17.16 GTexel/s; MX110 is 16.10 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: FirePro M4150 is 549.1 GFLOPS; MX110 is 515.1 GFLOPS.
• TDP: FirePro M4150 is not listed; MX110 is 30 W.
• Transistors: FirePro M4150 is 950 million; MX110 is 1,020 million.
• PCIe Interface: FirePro M4150 is PCIe 3.0 x8; MX110 is PCIe 3.0 x4.
• Slot Width: FirePro M4150 is MXM Module; MX110 is IGP.
• Power Connectors: FirePro M4150 is not listed; MX110 is None.
• DirectX Support: FirePro M4150 is 12 (11_1); MX110 is 12 (11_0).
• Vulkan Support: FirePro M4150 is 1.2.170; MX110 is 1.4.

The FirePro’s higher FP32 (549.1 GFLOPS) and texture rate do not translate into benchmark wins. The MX110’s higher pixel rate and newer API support make it the more practical choice. The FirePro’s MXM form factor and x8 bus suggest it was designed for modular laptops, while the MX110’s IGP slot and x4 bus indicate a more integrated, power-efficient design.