AMD FirePro W4100 vs AMD Radeon 760M Comparison

The AMD Radeon 760M and AMD FirePro W4100 represent two very different eras of graphics hardware, separated by nearly a decade of architectural evolution. The data shows a clear overall winner: the Radeon 760M wins both shared benchmarks by massive margins, with a 269.8% lead in Geekbench OpenCL and a 367% lead in Geekbench Vulkan. However, the FirePro W4100 retains a niche advantage in its dedicated memory configuration and professional display outputs, making it relevant for specific legacy workflows. The Radeon 760M is the superior performer for almost any modern task, while the FirePro W4100 is only worth considering for systems requiring its specific physical and memory characteristics.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. In the two head-to-head tests available, the Radeon 760M dominates the FirePro W4100. The Radeon 760M scores 20,255 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the FirePro W4100's 5,478, and 30,336 in Geekbench Vulkan versus 6,496. This translates to a 269.8% advantage in compute performance and a 367% advantage in the Vulkan API. The average benchmark score also favors the newer part: the Radeon 760M averages 6,019 across all its tests, while the FirePro W4100 averages 5,987. The percentile rankings are close (35th for the 760M versus 34th for the W4100), but this is because the W4100 only has two benchmark entries, both of which are low compared to its rivals. The Radeon 760M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon RX 6400, with a delta of just 0.3%, indicating it sits in a similar performance tier. The FirePro W4100's closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, with a 0% delta, placing it in a much older performance bracket.

Who should pick which? The data suggests that anyone needing modern API support, high compute throughput, or ray tracing should choose the Radeon 760M. Its RDNA 3.0 architecture and 8 ray tracing cores provide capabilities the FirePro W4100 simply lacks. Conversely, the FirePro W4100 is the only choice for systems that require a discrete, single-slot card with 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory and a 128-bit bus, plus four mini-DisplayPort outputs. It is also the only one with a 250 W suggested PSU, whereas the 760M is an IGP with no power connectors. For a new build, the Radeon 760M is the logical pick; for a legacy workstation replacement with specific display needs, the FirePro W4100 has no direct substitute in this comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon 760M wins on every benchmark metric where both are tested. In Geekbench OpenCL, it scores 20,255 versus 5,478, a decisive win for compute workloads. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 30,336 versus 6,496, showing an even larger advantage in modern graphics APIs. The Radeon 760M also wins on raw specification-based performance estimates: its pixel rate is 41.58 GPixel/s versus 10.08 GPixel/s for the FirePro W4100, and its texture rate is 83.17 GTexel/s versus 20.16 GTexel/s. The FP32 throughput tells the same story: 5.323 TFLOPS for the 760M versus 645.1 GFLOPS for the W4100.

The FirePro W4100's wins are not in raw performance but in physical form and memory configuration. It has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Radeon 760M uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth. For applications that require dedicated VRAM, this is a distinct advantage, even if slower. The W4100 also offers a single-slot form factor with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while the 760M's display outputs are motherboard-dependent. The W4100 is an end-of-life product, but its discrete design means it can be dropped into a system with a PCIe 3.0 x16 slot, whereas the 760M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) soldered to the motherboard.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Radeon 760M uses RDNA 3.0, fabricated on a 4 nm TSMC process, while the FirePro W4100 uses GCN 1.0, on a 28 nm TSMC process. This process node difference explains the massive transistor density gap: the 760M packs 25,390 million transistors into a 178 mm² die (142.6M / mm²), while the W4100 has just 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die (12.2M / mm²). The 760M's chip is codenamed Phoenix, and its generation is Navi III IGP, whereas the W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip in the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation.

The Radeon 760M features 8 dedicated ray tracing cores, which the FirePro W4100 lacks entirely. Both have 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, but the 760M's clocks are far higher: a base of 800 MHz and a boost of 2599 MHz, versus no listed base or boost clocks for the W4100 (its memory clock is 1000 MHz or 4 Gbps effective). The 760M supports FP16 at a 1:1 ratio with FP32 (5.323 TFLOPS each), while the W4100 lists no FP16 capability. API support also differs: the 760M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), Vulkan 1.4, and OpenGL 4.6, while the W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), Vulkan 1.2.170, and OpenGL 4.6. The 760M's bus interface is PCIe 4.0 x8, versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the W4100.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has better compute performance?

A: The AMD Radeon 760M is vastly superior. It scores 20,255 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5,478 for the FirePro W4100, a 269.8% difference. Its FP32 throughput is 5.323 TFLOPS compared to 645.1 GFLOPS for the W4100.

Q: Does the FirePro W4100 have any advantages over the Radeon 760M?

A: Yes, in memory configuration and physical design. The W4100 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the 760M uses system-shared memory. The W4100 is also a single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, whereas the 760M is an IGP with motherboard-dependent outputs.

Q: Can the Radeon 760M handle ray tracing?

A: Yes. The Radeon 760M includes 8 ray tracing cores and supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), which includes ray tracing features. The FirePro W4100 has no ray tracing cores and only supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: Which GPU is more power-efficient?

A: The Radeon 760M has a TDP of 15 W, while the FirePro W4100 has a TDP of 50 W. The 760M also requires no power connectors, whereas the W4100 has none either but suggests a 250 W PSU.

Q: Are they compatible with the same software APIs?

A: Not entirely. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the Radeon 760M supports Vulkan 1.4 and DirectX 12 Ultimate, while the FirePro W4100 supports Vulkan 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (11_1). The 760M also supports FP16 compute, which the W4100 does not list.

Q: Which GPU is newer?

A: The Radeon 760M was released on 2024-01-30, while the FirePro W4100 was released on 2014-08-12. The 760M is still active in production, whereas the W4100 is end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two benchmarks shared by both GPUs are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the Radeon 760M wins both by a wide margin. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 760M scores 20,255 against 5,478 for the FirePro W4100, a delta of 269.8%. This is a massive gap that reflects the architectural leap from GCN 1.0 to RDNA 3.0, as well as the clock speed advantage (2599 MHz boost versus no listed clocks for the W4100). The 760M's FP32 compute of 5.323 TFLOPS is over eight times the W4100's 645.1 GFLOPS, which directly translates to this benchmark result.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the difference is even more pronounced. The Radeon 760M scores 30,336, while the FirePro W4100 manages only 6,496, resulting in a 367% delta. Vulkan is a modern low-level API, and the W4100's support for only version 1.2.170, combined with its older GCN architecture, puts it at a severe disadvantage. The 760M's Vulkan 1.4 support and RDNA 3.0 design allow it to exploit the API's features far more efficiently. The 760M also has a higher average benchmark score across all its tests (6,019) than the W4100 (5,987), though this is a smaller margin because the W4100's limited benchmark set pulls its average down.

Looking at the nearest rivals provides context. The Radeon 760M's average score of 6,019 places it just 0.3% above the AMD Radeon RX 6400 (6,001) and 0.4% above the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996), but 0.5% below the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6,049). This indicates the 760M is a mid-tier performer in the current landscape. The FirePro W4100's average of 5,987 is exactly level with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5,986) and 0.1% above the Quadro K4000 (5,982), but 0.2% below both the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5,996) and the GeForce GTX 770M (6,000). This shows the W4100 is comparable to early-2010s mobile and professional GPUs, not modern parts.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights only the fields where the two GPUs differ, based on the FACT PACK data:

| Specification | AMD Radeon 760M | AMD FirePro W4100 |

|---|---|---|

| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |

| Generation | Navi III IGP (Phoenix) | FirePro GCN (Wx100) |

| Process Node | 4 nm | 28 nm |

| Transistors | 25,390 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 178 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 142.6M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 800 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 2599 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | System Shared | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Size | System Shared | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | System Shared | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | System Shared | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | System Dependent | 64.00 GB/s |

| RT Cores | 8 | None |

| Pixel Rate | 41.58 GPixel/s | 10.08 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 83.17 GTexel/s | 20.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 5.323 TFLOPS | 645.1 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | 5.323 TFLOPS (1:1) | Not listed |

| TDP | 15 W | 50 W |

| Slot Width | IGP | Single-slot |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |

| Display Outputs | Motherboard Dependent | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| DirectX Support | 12 Ultimate (12_2) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan Support | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Dimensions (Length) | Not listed | 171 mm (6.7 inches) |

| Dimensions (Height) | Not listed | 69 mm (2.7 inches) |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2024-01-30 | 2014-08-12 |

| Predecessor | Navi II IGP | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Not listed | Radeon Pro Polaris |

The Radeon 760M is a modern integrated processor with state-of-the-art features, while the FirePro W4100 is a legacy discrete workstation card. The 760M's advantages in process node, clock speeds, memory bandwidth (system-dependent but shared), and API support are overwhelming. The W4100's only hardware wins are its dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory and its four mini-DisplayPort outputs, which are irrelevant for most modern workloads but critical for certain multi-display, legacy professional environments.