AMD FirePro W4100 vs AMD Radeon 610M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 records an average benchmark score of 5987, which is 10% higher than the AMD Radeon 610M's average of 5444. The FirePro W4100 also holds a higher percentile ranking at 34 versus 32 for the Radeon 610M.

Q: How large is the performance gap in OpenCL workloads?

A: The FirePro W4100 leads by 20.8% in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 5478 against the Radeon 610M's 4535. This is the largest single benchmark margin between the two cards.

Q: Does the Radeon 610M win any benchmark comparison?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head data, the FirePro W4100 wins both tests. The Radeon 610M's closest result is in Geekbench Vulkan, where it trails by only 2.3% (6353 versus 6496).

Q: What architecture does each GPU use?

A: The FirePro W4100 uses GCN 1.0 based on the Cape Verde chip, built on a 28 nm process. The Radeon 610M uses RDNA 2.0 based on the Mendocino chip, built on a 6 nm process.

Q: How do the memory subsystems differ?

A: The FirePro W4100 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon 610M uses system shared memory with system dependent bandwidth and no dedicated VRAM.

Q: What are the power requirements for each card?

A: The FirePro W4100 has a 50 W TDP and a suggested PSU of 250 W, while the Radeon 610M has a 15 W TDP. Neither card requires external power connectors.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different eras of AMD design. The FirePro W4100 uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on the Cape Verde chip, a 28 nm part fabricated by TSMC with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The Radeon 610M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture on the Mendocino chip, a 6 nm part with a 100 mm² die size. The transistor density figure for the FirePro W4100 is 12.2M per mm²; no equivalent density figure is recorded for the Radeon 610M.

The compute resource allocation differs sharply. The FirePro W4100 carries 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The Radeon 610M has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. Despite the much lower count, the Radeon 610M includes 2 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the GCN-based FirePro W4100. The FirePro W4100 has no recorded RT cores.

Clock behavior also separates the two. The Radeon 610M has explicit base and boost clocks of 1500 MHz and 1900 MHz respectively. The FirePro W4100 has no base or boost clock figures in the database; its memory clock is recorded at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective. The Radeon 610M's memory clock is listed as system shared.

The interface and form factor are fundamentally different. The FirePro W4100 is a single-slot, 171 mm (6.7 inches) long card with a 69 mm (2.7 inches) height, using PCIe 3.0 x16. The Radeon 610M is an integrated GPU (IGP) with PCIe 4.0 x8 and no physical dimensions recorded. Display outputs also reflect this: the FirePro W4100 has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the Radeon 610M's outputs are portable device dependent.

API support shows generational progress. The FirePro W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The Radeon 610M also records FP16 performance at 972.8 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, while the FirePro W4100 lists no FP16 capability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data contains two Geekbench comparisons, and the FirePro W4100 wins both. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the FirePro W4100 scores 5478 against the Radeon 610M's 4535. That is a 20.8% advantage, the largest delta in either direction between these two parts. In practical terms, this margin suggests the discrete FirePro W4100 handles general compute workloads with substantially more throughput, likely due to its 4x shading unit count and dedicated GDDR5 bandwidth.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan. Here the FirePro W4100 scores 6496 and the Radeon 610M scores 6353, a much narrower 2.3% gap. This close result is notable because the Radeon 610M has far fewer shading units and relies on shared system memory. The Vulkan result indicates that the RDNA 2.0 architecture's newer feature set, including ray tracing cores and DX12 Ultimate support, partially compensates for the raw resource deficit. Still, the FirePro W4100 holds the win.

Looking at the broader rival context, the FirePro W4100's average score of 5987 places it within 0.2% of the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996) and 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M (6000). It is effectively tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986) and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982). The Radeon 610M's average of 5444 sits 0.4% behind the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467), 0.5% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416), 0.7% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483), and 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501). The Radeon 610M's nearest rival cluster is consistently lower than the FirePro W4100's nearest rival cluster, reinforcing the average score gap.

When interpreting the wins, the FirePro W4100's two victories are not equal in magnitude. The OpenCL result is decisive, while the Vulkan result is close enough that run-to-run variation could plausibly flip it. The database shows winsA as 2 and winsB as 0, so the overall head-to-head record is unambiguous, but the Vulkan margin should be read as near parity rather than dominance.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every recorded specification. Process node: 28 nm for the FirePro W4100 versus 6 nm for the Radeon 610M. Transistor count: 1,500 million for the FirePro W4100, no figure recorded for the Radeon 610M. Die size: 123 mm² versus 100 mm². Transistor density: 12.2M / mm² for the FirePro W4100, none for the Radeon 610M.

Base clock: not recorded for the FirePro W4100, 1500 MHz for the Radeon 610M. Boost clock: not recorded for the FirePro W4100, 1900 MHz for the Radeon 610M. Memory clock: 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective for the FirePro W4100, system shared for the Radeon 610M. Memory size: 2 GB GDDR5 versus system shared. Bus width: 128 bit versus system shared. Bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s versus system dependent.

Shading units: 512 versus 128. TMUs: 32 versus 8. ROPs: 16 versus 4. Ray tracing cores: none recorded versus 2. Pixel rate: 10.08 GPixel/s versus 7.600 GPixel/s. Texture rate: 20.16 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s. FP32: 645.1 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS. FP16: none recorded versus 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1).

TDP: 50 W versus 15 W. Slot width: single-slot versus IGP. Power connectors: none for both. Suggested PSU: 250 W for the FirePro W4100, none for the Radeon 610M. Bus interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 versus PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 versus portable device dependent. DirectX: 12 (11_1) versus 12 Ultimate (12_2). Vulkan: 1.2.170 versus 1.4. Dimensions: the FirePro W4100 is 171 mm long and 69 mm high; the Radeon 610M has no dimensions recorded.

Release dates are also far apart: the FirePro W4100 launched on 2014-08-12, the Radeon 610M on 2022-09-19. Both are marked end-of-life. The FirePro W4100's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris; the Radeon 610M's predecessor is Vega II IGP and its successor is Navi III IGP.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision based on workload type. For raw compute throughput in OpenCL, the FirePro W4100 is the stronger part. Its 20.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, combined with 4x the shading units and dedicated GDDR5 bandwidth, makes it the obvious choice for applications that rely heavily on general-purpose GPU compute. The FP32 output of 645.1 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS reinforces this direction.

For Vulkan-based workloads, the choice is less obvious. The FirePro W4100 still wins the recorded test, but by only 2.3%, and the Radeon 610M brings newer architectural features to the table: ray tracing cores, DX12 Ultimate support, Vulkan 1.4, and FP16 capability at 972.8 GFLOPS. A user targeting modern graphics APIs might reasonably prefer the Radeon 610M despite the slight benchmark deficit.

The power envelope strongly favors the Radeon 610M. At 15 W versus 50 W, it draws a third of the power while delivering roughly 90% of the average benchmark score (5444 versus 5987). The FirePro W4100's 250 W suggested PSU is an additional system-level requirement that the Radeon 610M, as an IGP, does not impose.

The FirePro W4100 also holds the overall average score advantage at 5987 versus 5444, a 10% gap, and ranks in the 34th percentile versus the 32nd. Its nearest rivals are all within 0.2% of its average score, indicating a tightly competitive field at that performance tier. The Radeon 610M's nearest rivals span a 1% range around its average, also a tight cluster but at a lower absolute level.

Deciding between them depends on the platform. For a desktop workstation with a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot, the FirePro W4100 delivers higher compute performance, more display outputs, and a proven discrete form factor. For a portable or low-power system where the GPU must share memory and fit within an IGP power budget, the Radeon 610M is the only practical option despite its lower scores. The benchmark data does not suggest that the Radeon 610M outperforms the FirePro W4100 in any recorded test, but it does show that the gap narrows considerably under Vulkan, where the newer architecture's features offset its smaller resource pool.