AMD FirePro W4100 vs AMD Radeon R5 M240 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single recorded head-to-head benchmark in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it delivers a clear verdict. The AMD Radeon R5 M240 scores 6975 points, while the AMD FirePro W4100 records 5478 points. That is a 27.3% advantage for the Radeon R5 M240, a substantial margin in a compute-oriented workload. The R5 M240 wins the only direct comparison, giving it a 1-0 record in head-to-head matchups.

Looking at the broader database context, the R5 M240 sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4100 rests at the 34th percentile. The gap in raw OpenCL performance is consistent with those percentile rankings. The R5 M240's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M at 6946 points (0.4% behind), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 680M at 7023 points (0.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA T600 at 7035 points (0.8% ahead). The R5 M240 is essentially neck-and-neck with that cluster, trading blows within a single percentage point.

The FirePro W4100, by contrast, sits in a different performance tier. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5986 points (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 points (0.1% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000 points (0.2% ahead). The W4100's average benchmark score across all tests is 5987, which reflects its additional Vulkan result of 6496 points. That Vulkan score is notably higher than its OpenCL figure, suggesting the W4100 has architecture-level strengths that manifest differently across API workloads.

The 27.3% OpenCL gap between the two cards is the headline number. The R5 M240 delivers nearly a third more compute throughput in that specific test. However, the W4100 has its own counterargument: it posted a Vulkan score of 6496, which is 18.6% higher than its OpenCL result. That internal discrepancy shows the W4100 is not uniformly slower; it responds well to certain workload types.

Where Each One Wins

The R5 M240 wins decisively in OpenCL compute. Its 6975 score versus 5478 for the W4100 represents a 27.3% lead, and this is the only direct benchmark comparison available in the database. For any application that relies on OpenCL acceleration, the data points firmly toward the R5 M240.

The FirePro W4100, despite losing the head-to-head OpenCL test, demonstrates its own strength in Vulkan. Its Geekbench Vulkan score of 6496 exceeds its OpenCL score by over 1000 points. This suggests the W4100 is better optimized for Vulkan workloads, and in that API it would likely be competitive with or ahead of the R5 M240, which has no recorded Vulkan benchmark in the database.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The R5 M240 is the better choice for OpenCL-centric tasks, where its 27.3% lead in the head-to-head test is unambiguous. The W4100, however, is the card to consider for Vulkan-based applications, given its strong 6496 score in that test. The W4100 also carries workstation-oriented features, such as four mini-DisplayPort outputs, which make it suited for multi-display professional setups. The R5 M240's display outputs are not recorded in the database, so no direct comparison is possible there.

In terms of percentile placement, the R5 M240 at the 39th percentile sits above the W4100 at the 34th percentile. That five-point gap in the overall distribution reinforces the OpenCL result: the R5 M240 is the stronger compute performer in general-purpose workloads. For users prioritizing raw compute throughput, the R5 M240 is the winner. For users prioritizing Vulkan compatibility and professional display connectivity, the W4100 has distinct advantages.

Architecture Differences

Both cards share the same GCN 1.0 architecture and are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process, but their underlying chips differ significantly. The R5 M240 uses the Jet chip, while the W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip. The transistor counts tell a story of scale: the Jet chip packs 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, while Cape Verde contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The transistor density is nearly identical, at 12.3 million per mm² for the R5 M240 and 12.2 million per mm² for the W4100, reflecting the same manufacturing process.

The W4100's larger chip translates into more compute resources. It has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The R5 M240, by contrast, has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The W4100 has 60% more shading units, 60% more TMUs, and double the ROPs. Despite this hardware advantage, the W4100 actually posts slightly lower FP32 performance: 645.1 GFLOPS versus 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M240. The R5 M240's higher clock speeds, with a base of 1000 MHz and boost of 1030 MHz, help close the gap. The W4100's core clocks are not recorded in the database.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The R5 M240 uses 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The W4100 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 4.4x bandwidth advantage for the W4100, a massive difference that likely explains its stronger Vulkan showing. The memory clock rates also differ: the R5 M240 runs at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the W4100 runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

The bus interface is another point of divergence. The R5 M240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the W4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16. The W4100's wider interface provides more host bandwidth, which can matter for data transfer in professional workloads. The W4100 also has a recorded TDP of 50 W, a single-slot form factor, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R5 M240 has no TDP or power data recorded.

The W4100 is a workstation card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and dimensions of 171 mm by 69 mm. The R5 M240 has no display output information in the database. Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, so API coverage is identical. The R5 M240 belongs to the Gem System (R5 M200) generation, while the W4100 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation.

FAQ

Q: Which card is faster in OpenCL benchmarks?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M240 is significantly faster, scoring 6975 points on Geekbench OpenCL compared to 5478 points for the AMD FirePro W4100, a 27.3% advantage.

Q: Does the FirePro W4100 have any performance advantage?

A: Yes, the W4100 posts a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6496, which is substantially higher than its own OpenCL score of 5478. The R5 M240 has no recorded Vulkan benchmark, so the W4100 shows strength in that specific API.

Q: How do the memory systems compare?

A: The W4100 has a clear advantage. It features 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The R5 M240 has 1 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the shading unit counts?

A: The W4100 has 512 shading units, while the R5 M240 has 320. The W4100 also has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, compared to 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs for the R5 M240.

Q: Are both cards based on the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use GCN 1.0 architecture and are built on TSMC's 28 nm process. However, they use different chips: the R5 M240 uses Jet, while the W4100 uses Cape Verde.

Q: Which card has better overall database ranking?

A: The R5 M240 sits at the 39th percentile of all GPUs, while the W4100 sits at the 34th percentile. The R5 M240's average benchmark score is 6975, compared to 5987 for the W4100.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R5 M240 | AMD FirePro W4100 |

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

| Chip | Jet | Cape Verde |

| Generation | Gem System (R5 M200) | FirePro GCN (Wx100) |

| Transistors | 690 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 56 mm² | 123 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 12.2M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Shading Units | 320 | 512 |

| TMUs | 20 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 8.240 GPixel/s | 10.08 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.60 GTexel/s | 20.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 659.2 GFLOPS | 645.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not recorded | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Not recorded | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not recorded | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not recorded | 250 W |

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

| Display Outputs | Not recorded | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 |

| Dimensions | Not recorded | 171 mm length, 69 mm height |

| Release Date | 2014-09-17 | 2014-08-12 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Radeon Pro Polaris |

| Geekbench OpenCL Score | 6975 | 5478 |

| Geekbench Vulkan Score | Not recorded | 6496 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 6975 | 5987 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 39 | 34 |

The specification table reveals a fascinating inversion. The W4100 has more hardware resources across the board: more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, wider memory bus, faster memory, and more VRAM. Yet the R5 M240 wins the OpenCL benchmark due to its higher core clocks. The R5 M240's base clock of 1000 MHz and boost of 1030 MHz are recorded, while the W4100's core clocks are absent from the database. The result is that the smaller, leaner R5 M240 achieves higher FP32 throughput despite having 37.5% fewer shading units. The W4100's advantages lie in memory bandwidth, display connectivity, and Vulkan performance, making it the more versatile card for professional multi-display and modern API workloads, while the R5 M240 holds the crown for pure OpenCL compute.