AMD FirePro W4100 vs AMD Radeon R5 M435 Comparison

# AMD FirePro W4100 vs AMD Radeon R5 M435

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 is the clear benchmark winner in the single available comparison, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test by 6.5% over the AMD FirePro W4100. However, the FirePro W4100 is not without its own advantages—it carries a significantly larger die, more shading units, quadruple the memory bus width, and four display outputs, making it a workstation-oriented card where connectivity and parallel compute resources matter. The R5 M435, by contrast, is a mobile integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a smaller footprint, higher boost clocks, and a slightly better raw compute score, but it lacks the FirePro's display flexibility and memory bandwidth. Benchmark data shows the R5 M435 scoring 5859 in Geekbench OpenCL versus the W4100's 5478, a 381-point gap, while the W4100 also has a Vulkan score of 6496 that the R5 M435 does not report. For users prioritizing compute throughput per watt or per square millimeter, the R5 M435 wins; for those needing multi-display output or higher memory bandwidth, the W4100 is the better fit.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded: Geekbench OpenCL. Its score of 5859 beats the FirePro W4100's 5478 by 6.5%. This is a notable result given the R5 M435's smaller specifications—320 shading units versus 512, a 64-bit memory bus versus 128-bit, and 690 million transistors versus 1,500 million. The R5 M435's advantage appears to come from its clock speeds: it has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 1030 MHz, while the W4100's base and boost clocks are not listed in the data. The R5 M435 also has a slightly higher FP32 throughput at 659.2 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS, despite having fewer cores. This suggests the R5 M435 is engineered for efficiency in a mobile form factor, where higher clocks per core compensate for reduced core counts.

The AMD FirePro W4100 wins in areas not covered by the head-to-head benchmark but evident from its specification sheet. It offers 64.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth versus the R5 M435's 36.00 GB/s, a 78% advantage. This is critical for workloads that are memory-bound, such as large texture fetches or compute kernels that stream data. The W4100 also has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, enabling multi-monitor setups, while the R5 M435's display outputs are "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they rely on the host laptop's panel and external ports. The W4100's pixel rate of 10.08 GPixel/s exceeds the R5 M435's 8.240 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is nearly identical (20.16 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s), but the W4100's higher ROP count (16 vs 8) gives it an edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios. The W4100 is also a single-slot card with a 250 W suggested PSU and no power connectors, whereas the R5 M435 is an IGP with no power connector data and no suggested PSU, underscoring their different deployment targets.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859, which is 6.5% higher than the AMD FirePro W4100's 5478.

Q: Does the FirePro W4100 have any benchmark result the R5 M435 lacks?

A: Yes. The W4100 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6496; the R5 M435 has no Vulkan benchmark listed.

Q: How do their memory bandwidths compare?

A: The W4100 has 64.00 GB/s bandwidth from a 128-bit bus with 2 GB GDDR5, while the R5 M435 has 36.00 GB/s from a 64-bit bus with 2 GB GDDR5.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The W4100 has 512 shading units, while the R5 M435 has 320.

Q: Are these GPUs from the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use GCN 1.0 architecture, are built on a 28 nm TSMC process, and support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are the transistor counts and die sizes?

A: The W4100 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the R5 M435 has 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 1.0 architecture using TSMC's 28 nm process, but their physical designs diverge sharply. The FirePro W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip, a mid-range processor with 1,500 million transistors packed into a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The Radeon R5 M435 uses the Jet chip, a low-power part with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, giving a nearly identical density of 12.3M per mm². Despite the similar density, the W4100's die is more than twice the size, indicating a fundamentally different class of hardware.

The W4100's compute resources are substantially larger: 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, versus the R5 M435's 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the W4100 has 60% more shading units and double the ROPs. However, the R5 M435 compensates with higher clocks—its boost of 1030 MHz is not matched by any clock data for the W4100—resulting in FP32 performance of 659.2 GFLOPS, slightly ahead of the W4100's 645.1 GFLOPS. The R5 M435's memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective) compared to the W4100's 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), but the W4100's 128-bit bus doubles the bandwidth to 64.00 GB/s versus 36.00 GB/s.

The bus interfaces differ as well: the W4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R5 M435 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. The W4100 is a single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, a 50 W TDP, and no power connectors, while the R5 M435 is an IGP with no TDP listed, no power connector data, and display outputs described as "Portable Device Dependent." The W4100 has dimensions of 171 mm length and 69 mm height, whereas the R5 M435 has no dimensions listed, consistent with its mobile integration. Both are end-of-life products, with the W4100 released on 2014-08-12 and the R5 M435 on 2016-05-14.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the results favor the Radeon R5 M435. The R5 M435 scores 5859, while the FirePro W4100 scores 5478, giving the R5 M435 a 6.5% lead. This is a decisive margin, especially considering the W4100's larger core configuration. The R5 M435 achieves this with 320 shading units and a 64-bit memory bus, relying on a boost clock of 1030 MHz to reach 659.2 GFLOPS. The W4100's 512 shading units at a presumably lower clock produce only 645.1 GFLOPS, indicating that the W4100's cores are not being utilized as efficiently in this particular OpenCL workload.

Context from nearest rivals helps interpret these scores. The W4100's average benchmark score is 5987, placing it at the 34th percentile of all GPUs. Its closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at an average score of 5986 (0% delta), followed by the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (0.1% delta), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 (-0.2% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6000 (-0.2% delta). This means the W4100 sits in a tight cluster around 6000, with less than 1% separating it from its nearest competitors. The R5 M435's average benchmark score is 5859, at the 33rd percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R7 M465 at 5841 (0.3% delta), the Intel UHD Graphics 730 at 5929 (-1.2% delta), the AMD Radeon HD 8730M at 5955 (-1.6% delta), and the NVIDIA Quadro K620M at 5957 (-1.6% delta).

The R5 M435's 6.5% lead over the W4100 in OpenCL is larger than the typical gaps seen among their respective rival clusters. For example, the W4100's closest rival, the Quadro K4000M, is within 0.1% of its score, while the R5 M435's closest rival, the R7 M465, is within 0.3%. The 381-point difference between the R5 M435 and W4100 is thus a meaningful outlier, not a statistical tie. The W4100's Vulkan score of 6496 suggests it may perform better in compute APIs other than OpenCL, but no Vulkan data exists for the R5 M435, so a direct comparison in that API is impossible.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in almost every measurable specification except for memory size, type, and API support. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory and support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Beyond that, the differences are extensive:

• Chip: Cape Verde (W4100) vs Jet (R5 M435)
• Transistors: 1,500 million vs 690 million
• Die Size: 123 mm² vs 56 mm²
• Transistor Density: 12.2M / mm² vs 12.3M / mm²
• Memory Clock: 1000 MHz (4 Gbps) vs 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps)
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s vs 36.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 512 vs 320
• TMUs: 32 vs 20
• ROPs: 16 vs 8
• Pixel Rate: 10.08 GPixel/s vs 8.240 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 20.16 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s
• FP32: 645.1 GFLOPS vs 659.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 50 W vs not listed
• Slot Width: Single-slot vs IGP
• Power Connectors: None vs not listed
• Suggested PSU: 250 W vs not listed
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x16 vs PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display Outputs: 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 vs Portable Device Dependent
• Dimensions: 171 mm x 69 mm vs not listed
• Release Date: 2014-08-12 vs 2016-05-14
• Predecessor: FirePro Terascale vs Solar System
• Successor: Radeon Pro Polaris vs Polaris Mobile
• Generation: FirePro GCN (Wx100) vs Gem System (R5 M400)

The W4100 also has a Vulkan benchmark score (6496) and an average benchmark score of 5987, while the R5 M435 has no Vulkan score and an average of 5859.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the AMD Radeon R5 M435 wins on raw compute in the tested workload, while the AMD FirePro W4100 wins on memory bandwidth, display connectivity, and overall hardware resources. If the only criterion is Geekbench OpenCL performance, the R5 M435 is the better card, delivering 6.5% higher scores with fewer cores and a narrower memory bus. Its higher boost clock of 1030 MHz and FP32 output of 659.2 GFLOPS demonstrate that clock speed can overcome core count disadvantages in certain workloads.

However, the W4100's advantages are compelling for workstation use. Its 128-bit memory bus provides 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is 78% higher than the R5 M435's 36.00 GB/s. This makes the W4100 better suited for tasks that move large amounts of data, such as video editing, 3D rendering, or compute kernels that repeatedly access memory. The W4100's four mini-DisplayPort outputs enable multi-monitor productivity setups, whereas the R5 M435's display outputs depend entirely on the host laptop, limiting it to whatever ports the manufacturer provides. The W4100 also has a Vulkan score of 6496, suggesting it can leverage modern APIs effectively, though no comparable data exists for the R5 M435.

For a desktop workstation with multiple displays and memory-intensive workloads, the FirePro W4100 is the logical choice. For a mobile system where power efficiency and compact integration are priorities, and where OpenCL compute is the primary task, the Radeon R5 M435 delivers better measured performance. The R5 M435's placement at the 33rd percentile versus the W4100's 34th percentile shows they are nearly equivalent in overall GPU hierarchy, but the R5 M435's higher score in the head-to-head test gives it the edge for users who value compute over connectivity. The choice ultimately depends on whether the user needs the W4100's bandwidth and display outputs or the R5 M435's superior OpenCL score in a mobile form factor.