GPU Comparison

# AMD FirePro W4100 vs AMD Radeon HD 8750M

The AMD FirePro W4100 and AMD Radeon HD 8750M are two end-of-life graphics solutions sharing the same GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm TSMC manufacturing process, yet they target fundamentally different segments of the market. The FirePro W4100 is a professional workstation card with a 50 W TDP and four display outputs, while the Radeon HD 8750M is a mobile GPU from the Solar System generation designed for laptops. Benchmark data reveals a surprising outcome: the mobile part actually outperforms the workstation card in the single available head-to-head test, despite the FirePro's larger die and higher transistor count.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD Radeon HD 8750M wins decisively, scoring 5970 against the FirePro W4100's 5478, a delta of -8.2% from the FirePro's perspective.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on GCN 1.0 architecture and manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process node, making them architectural siblings from AMD.

Q: What is the memory configuration difference between the two?

A: The FirePro W4100 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the HD 8750M has 1024 MB of DDR3 with only 28.80 GB/s bandwidth, a massive 2.2x difference in memory throughput.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The FirePro W4100 has an average benchmark score of 5987, while the HD 8750M averages 5970, a marginal 0.3% difference that places both in the same 34th percentile of all GPUs.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each card?

A: The FirePro W4100 sits within 0.2% of the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M, K4000, and GeForce GTX 770M, while the HD 8750M is within 0.3% of the Quadro K4000, Quadro K620M, and Radeon HD 8730M.

Q: Which card has more shading units and texture mapping units?

A: The FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units and 32 TMUs, compared to the HD 8750M's 384 shading units and 24 TMUs, giving the workstation card a 33% advantage in both metrics.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs trace their lineage to GCN 1.0, AMD's first-generation Graphics Core Next architecture, and both are fabricated on the same 28 nm process at TSMC. The similarities end there, as the silicon implementations diverge significantly. The FirePro W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip, a 1,500-million-transistor die measuring 123 mm², while the HD 8750M employs the Mars chip with 950 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.2M per mm² for the FirePro and 12.3M per mm² for the mobile part, indicating that the size difference comes purely from the FirePro's larger allocation of compute resources.

The FirePro W4100 packs 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the HD 8750M contains 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This gives the workstation card a 33% advantage in shader and texture throughput, but the ROP count difference is even starker, the FirePro has double the render output units. The memory subsystem differs fundamentally: the FirePro uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus delivering 64.00 GB/s, whereas the HD 8750M has 1 GB of DDR3 on the same 128-bit bus but only achieves 28.80 GB/s. The FirePro's memory clock is 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the mobile chip runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective). The HD 8750M does have explicit base and boost clocks of 775 MHz and 825 MHz, while the FirePro's clocks are not specified in the data.

The FirePro W4100 supports PCIe 3.0 x16 and outputs 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2, while the HD 8750M uses PCIe 3.0 x8 and has no listed display outputs, reflecting its mobile, soldered nature. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The FirePro has a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors, with a suggested 250 W PSU, while the mobile part's power characteristics are not documented.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a curious picture: the Radeon HD 8750M wins the only head-to-head test, the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, with a score of 5970 versus 5478. This suggests that in raw compute workloads that scale well with OpenCL, the mobile GPU's higher clock speeds (825 MHz boost versus unspecified FirePro clocks) may compensate for its smaller resource pool. The HD 8750M's 633.6 GFLOPS FP32 performance is close to the FirePro's 645.1 GFLOPS, despite having 25% fewer shading units, which implies the mobile chip runs at substantially higher clocks.

The FirePro W4100's advantages lie elsewhere. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is more than double the HD 8750M's bandwidth, which matters for memory-bound workloads like large textures, high-resolution framebuffers, or datasets that exceed 1 GB. The FirePro's 16 ROPs versus 8 ROPs gives it a 2x pixel fill rate advantage (10.08 GPixel/s vs 6.60 GPixel/s), which benefits rasterization-heavy tasks. The workstation card's 4x mini-DisplayPort outputs make it suitable for multi-monitor professional setups, while the mobile GPU's display connectivity is not specified.

The texture rate is nearly identical (20.16 GTexel/s vs 19.80 GTexel/s), meaning texture-heavy workloads should perform similarly. The FirePro's larger die and transistor budget suggest it was designed for sustained professional workloads, while the HD 8750M's smaller, more power-efficient design targets mobile graphics with burst performance.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every measurable specification except architecture, process node, foundry, memory bus width, and API support. The FirePro W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the HD 8750M uses Mars with 950 million transistors on 77 mm². The FirePro has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs versus the HD 8750M's 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Memory is a major differentiator: the FirePro offers 2 GB GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the HD 8750M provides 1024 MB DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro's pixel rate is 10.08 GPixel/s and texture rate 20.16 GTexel/s, compared to 6.60 GPixel/s and 19.80 GTexel/s for the mobile part. FP32 performance is close: 645.1 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS.

The FirePro has a 50 W TDP, single-slot form factor, no power connectors, a 250 W suggested PSU, PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, and 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The HD 8750M has no listed TDP, slot width, power connectors, PSU suggestion, or display outputs, and uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The FirePro measures 171 mm (6.7 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height, while mobile dimensions are absent. The FirePro was released on 2014-08-12, succeeding FirePro Terascale and preceding Radeon Pro Polaris; the HD 8750M launched on 2013-02-25, succeeding London and preceding Gem System.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark, Geekbench OpenCL, delivers a surprising result: the Radeon HD 8750M wins with a score of 5970 against the FirePro W4100's 5478, a delta of -8.2% from the FirePro's perspective. This is remarkable given the FirePro's hardware advantages, 33% more shading units, double the ROPs, and 2.2x the memory bandwidth. The HD 8750M's victory suggests that its boost clock of 825 MHz, combined with the efficiency of the smaller Mars die, allows it to achieve comparable FP32 throughput (633.6 GFLOPS vs 645.1 GFLOPS) while potentially sustaining higher real-world clock rates.

The average benchmark scores tell a different story. The FirePro W4100 averages 5987 across all tests, while the HD 8750M averages 5970, a mere 0.3% gap that flips the head-to-head result. This implies that in other benchmark scenarios not covered by the single head-to-head test, the FirePro may perform better, particularly in tests that leverage its memory bandwidth or ROP throughput. Both cards sit at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, and their nearest rivals cluster tightly: the FirePro's rivals range from the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986, 0% delta) to the RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server (5996, -0.2%), while the HD 8750M's rivals span the Quadro K4000 (5982, -0.2%) to the Radeon HD 8730M (5955, 0.3%). This tight clustering indicates both GPUs occupy a narrow performance band where small architectural differences dictate outcomes.

The Geekbench Vulkan score for the FirePro W4100 is 6496, notably higher than its OpenCL score, though no Vulkan score exists for the HD 8750M, suggesting the FirePro's compute advantage may be more pronounced in Vulkan-based workloads.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture for potential buyers. The Radeon HD 8750M wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark, making it the better choice for OpenCL compute tasks where raw throughput matters and memory capacity is not a constraint. Its 5970 OpenCL score versus 5478 for the FirePro represents a real, if modest, 8.2% advantage that could translate to faster render times or compute workloads in that API.

The FirePro W4100, however, offers compelling reasons for selection despite losing the head-to-head. Its 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is a decisive advantage for any workload exceeding 1 GB or requiring high memory throughput, the HD 8750M's 28.80 GB/s bandwidth is a severe bottleneck for large datasets. The FirePro's double ROP count (16 vs 8) and 2x pixel rate (10.08 vs 6.60 GPixel/s) make it superior for framebuffer-heavy operations. Its workstation pedigree includes four mini-DisplayPort outputs for multi-monitor professional setups, a feature the mobile GPU lacks entirely.

For users prioritizing compute performance in OpenCL and operating within memory constraints, the HD 8750M's benchmark victory makes it the data-backed choice. For those needing memory capacity, bandwidth, multi-display output, or sustained professional workloads, the FirePro W4100's specification sheet tells a more compelling story despite its benchmark loss. The near-identical average scores (5987 vs 5970) suggest that outside the single head-to-head test, these GPUs are effectively interchangeable in performance, with the FirePro's additional resources providing headroom for workloads that stress memory or ROP throughput. Ultimately, the choice hinges on whether the user's workload resembles the Geekbench OpenCL test or demands the FirePro's professional feature set.