GPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score in the database?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 records an average benchmark score of 5987, while the AMD Radeon R7 240 records 5063. The FirePro W4100 sits in the 34th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the R7 240's 30th percentile.

Q: What is the performance difference in the only head-to-head benchmark?

A: In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro W4100 scores 5478 versus the R7 240's 5063, a delta of 8.2% in favor of the FirePro W4100.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between these two cards?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but the FirePro W4100 uses GDDR5 memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the R7 240 uses DDR3 memory at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for only 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What are the processing unit counts for each GPU?

A: The FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The R7 240 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel and texture fill rate?

A: The FirePro W4100 achieves 10.08 GPixel/s and 20.16 GTexel/s. The R7 240 achieves 6.240 GPixel/s and 15.60 GTexel/s. The FirePro W4100 leads in both metrics.

Q: What is the thermal design power for each card?

A: The FirePro W4100 has a TDP of 50 W, while the R7 240 has a lower TDP of 30 W. The suggested PSU requirement is 250 W for the FirePro and 200 W for the R7 240.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and use a 28 nm process at TSMC, but they are distinct chips with different transistor budgets. The FirePro W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The R7 240 uses the smaller Oland chip with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, giving a slightly higher density of 12.3M per mm². The difference in transistor count is substantial: the FirePro packs 58% more transistors than the R7 240.

The FirePro W4100 belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation, while the R7 240 comes from the Volcanic Islands (R7 200) generation. The FirePro's predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris. The R7 240's predecessor is Sea Islands and its successor is Pirate Islands. The R7 240 was released earlier, in October 2013, while the FirePro W4100 arrived in August 2014.

The memory subsystem is a major architectural divider. The FirePro W4100 uses GDDR5 memory clocked at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective data rate, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 240 uses DDR3 memory at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective, delivering 28.80 GB/s. This is more than a 2x bandwidth advantage for the FirePro, which has significant implications for memory-bound workloads.

Compute resources also differ structurally. The FirePro W4100 contains 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the R7 240 contains 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro has 60% more shading units, 60% more TMUs, and twice the ROP count. This translates directly to higher theoretical throughput: the FirePro achieves 645.1 GFLOPS FP32 versus the R7 240's 499.2 GFLOPS.

The bus interface differs as well. The FirePro W4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R7 240 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. This halves the available host interface bandwidth for the R7 240, though both cards are well below the saturation point for most workloads. The display outputs are also different: the FirePro offers 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 connections, while the R7 240 provides 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, and 1x VGA. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one head-to-head benchmark between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The FirePro W4100 scores 5478, and the R7 240 scores 5063. This gives the FirePro an 8.2% lead, and it wins the only recorded head-to-head comparison. The R7 240 has no wins in the head-to-head data.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the FirePro W4100's average benchmark score of 5987 places it directly among a cluster of NVIDIA professional and mobile GPUs. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5986 (0% delta), 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 FirePro W4100 is essentially tied with these four GPUs, all within a 0.3% performance band. It is remarkable that a 2014 workstation card sits dead even with a modern Blackwell server GPU in this particular aggregate score.

The R7 240's average score of 5063 places it alongside a set of AMD mobile and integrated parts. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M340 at 5063 (0% delta), the AMD FirePro W4170M at 5034 (0.6% delta), the AMD Radeon R5 M430 at 5018 (0.9% delta), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4998 (1.3% delta). The R7 240 is effectively the same performance as the R7 M340, and it edges out the others by less than 1.3%.

The single head-to-head delta of 8.2% is consistent with the raw compute advantage. The FirePro W4100's FP32 throughput is 645.1 GFLOPS versus the R7 240's 499.2 GFLOPS, which is a 29% theoretical gap. The memory bandwidth gap is even larger at 64.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. Yet the actual benchmark gap is only 8.2%, suggesting that the R7 240's lower power draw and simpler memory subsystem may allow it to maintain clocks more effectively, or that the OpenCL workload is not purely bandwidth-bound.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but modest winner. The AMD FirePro W4100 outperforms the AMD Radeon R7 240 in every recorded metric: average benchmark score, OpenCL score, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 compute, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and memory bandwidth. The 8.2% head-to-head lead in Geekbench OpenCL represents the measured performance gap in a real workload.

The FirePro W4100 is the appropriate choice for users who need a single-slot, low-profile professional card with four mini-DisplayPort outputs and the ability to drive multiple displays. Its 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth and 645.1 GFLOPS compute make it better suited for OpenCL compute tasks, CAD-like workloads, or any scenario where memory throughput matters.

The R7 240 is the more power-efficient option. Its 30 W TDP is 20 W lower than the FirePro's 50 W, and its suggested PSU requirement is 200 W versus 250 W. It also has a longer release history, having launched nearly a year earlier. For users building a minimal system with a VGA or HDMI output and no need for multiple DisplayPort connections, the R7 240 provides a functional baseline.

The percentile data shows both cards are low-end by modern standards. The FirePro W4100 sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, and the R7 240 sits at the 30th percentile. Neither card is a performance leader, but the FirePro W4100 consistently holds a measurable advantage. The database records 1 win for the FirePro W4100 and 0 wins for the R7 240 in head-to-head benchmarks.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4100 | AMD Radeon R7 240 |

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

| Chip | Cape Verde | Oland |

| Generation | FirePro GCN (Wx100) | Volcanic Islands (R7 200) |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 950 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 77 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | Not specified | 730 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 780 MHz |

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

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 28.80 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 320 |

| TMUs | 32 | 20 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.08 GPixel/s | 6.240 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.16 GTexel/s | 15.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Compute | 645.1 GFLOPS | 499.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 30 W |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | 200 W |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA |

| Release Date | 2014-08-12 | 2013-10-07 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Sea Islands |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | Pirate Islands |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | 69 USD |

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W4100 wins in every head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database. Its 8.2% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is backed by structural advantages in every compute category. The 512 shading units versus 320 gives it a 60% raw compute thread advantage. The 32 TMUs versus 20 provides 60% more texture filtering capacity. The 16 ROPs versus 8 doubles the pixel throughput capability. The 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s gives it a 122% bandwidth advantage, which is the largest single gap between the two cards.

The FirePro W4100 is the clear winner for any workload that stresses memory bandwidth or parallel compute. The data shows its pixel rate of 10.08 GPixel/s is 61% higher than the R7 240's 6.240 GPixel/s, and its texture rate of 20.16 GTexel/s is 29% higher than the R7 240's 15.60 GTexel/s. Its FP32 output of 645.1 GFLOPS is 29% higher than the R7 240's 499.2 GFLOPS. The four mini-DisplayPort outputs also make it the obvious choice for multi-monitor workstation setups.

The R7 240 wins in power efficiency. Its 30 W TDP is 40% lower than the FirePro W4100's 50 W. Its suggested PSU of 200 W is 20% lower. It also has a lower launch MSRP of 69 USD, though the FirePro W4100's launch MSRP is not recorded in the database. The R7 240's simpler display output set (DVI, HDMI, VGA) may be more compatible with older monitors without adapters.

For users who prioritize absolute compute performance, the FirePro W4100 is the only choice between these two. For users who prioritize minimal power draw and have no need for DisplayPort connectivity, the R7 240 offers a lower-power alternative that still delivers 5063 in OpenCL, which is 92.4% of the FirePro's score despite using only 60% of the power. The 8.2% performance gap in exchange for a 40% power reduction is a meaningful trade-off for power-constrained systems.