AMD FirePro W4100 vs AMD Radeon R7 M370 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M370 has the higher average benchmark score at 6764, compared to the AMD FirePro W4100 at 5987. This places the R7 M370 in the 38th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4100 sits in the 34th percentile.

Q: How do the two cards compare in OpenCL performance?

A: The Radeon R7 M370 scores 7063 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 28.9% higher than the FirePro W4100's 5478 in the same test.

Q: Which card wins in Vulkan performance?

A: The FirePro W4100 takes the Vulkan test with a score of 6496, narrowly edging out the R7 M370's 6465. The margin is only 0.5%.

Q: Do both cards use the same graphics architecture?

A: Yes, both are built on GCN 1.0 architecture and manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC. However, they use different chips: the R7 M370 uses the Litho chip, while the FirePro W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip.

Q: What is the memory configuration of each card?

A: Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus. The R7 M370 has a memory bandwidth of 57.60 GB/s, while the FirePro W4100 offers 64.00 GB/s.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units, while the R7 M370 has 384. The FirePro also has more texture mapping units (32 vs 24) and more render output units (16 vs 8).

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture and fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but their silicon implementations differ substantially. The Radeon R7 M370 uses the Litho chip, which contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The FirePro W4100 uses the larger Cape Verde chip, packing 1,500 million transistors onto a 123 mm² die, with a slightly lower density of 12.2 million per square millimeter.

The FirePro W4100's larger silicon translates into a more extensive compute configuration. It carries 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 render output units. The R7 M370, by contrast, is equipped with 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This structural difference explains why the two cards behave so differently across workloads: the FirePro has more parallel compute resources, while the R7 M370 operates with a leaner but differently balanced layout.

Clock behavior also differs. The R7 M370 has defined base and boost clocks of 875 MHz and 960 MHz respectively, while the FirePro W4100 does not list base or boost figures in the database. Memory clocks differ as well: the R7 M370 runs its GDDR5 at 900 MHz, or 3.6 Gbps effective, while the FirePro W4100 runs at 1000 MHz, or 4 Gbps effective. This gives the FirePro a higher memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s against the R7 M370's 57.60 GB/s.

The bus interface is another point of divergence. The R7 M370 connects through PCIe 3.0 x8, while the FirePro W4100 uses the full PCIe 3.0 x16 interface. The FirePro also lists a 50 W TDP, a single-slot form factor, no power connectors, and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The R7 M370 does not report TDP, slot width, or power connector data in the database. The FirePro W4100 offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, while display outputs for the R7 M370 are not recorded.

Both cards support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, so software feature parity is complete. The R7 M370 was released on May 4, 2015, while the FirePro W4100 predates it, launching on August 12, 2014. Both are now end-of-life products. The R7 M370 belongs to the Gem System generation within the R7 M300 family, while the FirePro W4100 is part of the FirePro GCN Wx100 generation.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split: the Radeon R7 M370 is the stronger choice for OpenCL-heavy workloads, while the FirePro W4100 holds a marginal edge in Vulkan. The R7 M370's average benchmark score of 6764 exceeds the FirePro W4100's 5987 by a meaningful margin, and its 28.9% OpenCL advantage is the single largest performance gap between the two.

For users whose applications rely on OpenCL compute, the R7 M370 is the pick. Its 7063 OpenCL score is not only far ahead of the FirePro's 5478, it also places the card within 1% of the AMD FirePro M5100 and 2.3% above the Radeon R7 M460, according to the nearest rival data. The FirePro W4100, in contrast, sits level with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at a 0% delta, which reflects its lower overall compute showing.

The FirePro W4100 is the better option when Vulkan performance matters most. Its 6496 Vulkan score beats the R7 M370's 6465, albeit by a razor-thin 0.5% margin. The FirePro also offers more shading units, more ROPs, higher memory bandwidth, and a x16 bus interface, all of which are structural advantages that may matter in specific rendering or professional workloads.

The verdict is situational. If the priority is raw OpenCL throughput, the R7 M370 wins decisively. If the workload is Vulkan-based or requires the FirePro's professional feature set, the W4100 takes it, but the margin is small enough that most users would not notice a practical difference. The R7 M370 is the better all-round performer based on average benchmark scores, but the FirePro W4100 is not outclassed in every scenario.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M370 | AMD FirePro W4100 |

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

| Chip | Litho | Cape Verde |

| Generation | Gem System (R7 M300) | FirePro GCN (Wx100) |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,500 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 123 mm² |

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

| Base Clock | 875 MHz | Not listed |

| Boost Clock | 960 MHz | Not listed |

| Memory Clock | 900 MHz (3.6 Gbps effective) | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 57.60 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 512 |

| TMUs | 24 | 32 |

| ROPs | 8 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.680 GPixel/s | 10.08 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 23.04 GTexel/s | 20.16 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 737.3 GFLOPS | 645.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not listed | 50 W |

| Slot Width | Not listed | Single-slot |

| Power Connectors | Not listed | None |

| Suggested PSU | Not listed | 250 W |

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

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

| Release Date | 2015-05-04 | 2014-08-12 |

| Predecessor | Solar System | FirePro Terascale |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Radeon Pro Polaris |

Both cards share the same process node, foundry, memory size, memory type, memory bus width, API support, and production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test produces the most lopsided result in this comparison. The Radeon R7 M370 scores 7063 against the FirePro W4100's 5478, a 28.9% advantage for the R7 M370. This is the decisive metric in the entire matchup. The R7 M370's OpenCL result also places it above several nearby rivals: it leads the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 by 1%, the AMD Radeon R7 M460 by 2.3%, and comes within 1% of the AMD FirePro M5100. The FirePro W4100's OpenCL score, by comparison, puts it in a cluster with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (0% delta) and the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (0.1% delta), with the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server just 0.2% above it and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M 0.2% above that.

The Vulkan test flips the result, but only slightly. The FirePro W4100 scores 6496 versus the R7 M370's 6465, a 0.5% margin in favor of the FirePro. This is effectively a tie in practical terms, but it does mean the two cards split the head-to-head benchmarks at one win each. The R7 M370 takes the OpenCL win; the FirePro W4100 takes the Vulkan win.

Average benchmark scores reinforce the R7 M370's overall position. The R7 M370 averages 6764, which is 12.9% higher than the FirePro W4100's 5987. The percentile rankings tell a similar story: the R7 M370 sits at the 38th percentile of all GPUs, four points above the FirePro W4100's 34th percentile.

The FirePro W4100 does hold structural advantages that do not show up in the compute benchmarks. Its pixel rate of 10.08 GPixel/s is significantly higher than the R7 M370's 7.680 GPixel/s, and its 16 ROPs double the R7 M370's 8. However, the R7 M370 counters with a higher texture rate of 23.04 GTexel/s versus 20.16 GTexel/s, and higher FP32 throughput of 737.3 GFLOPS against 645.1 GFLOPS. The R7 M370 also boosts to 960 MHz, and while the FirePro has no listed boost clock, its memory runs faster at 4 Gbps effective.

Where Each One Wins

The Radeon R7 M370 wins in OpenCL compute. Its 7063 OpenCL score is 28.9% ahead of the FirePro W4100, and this is the largest performance gap in the comparison. The R7 M370 also wins on average benchmark score (6764 vs 5987), FP32 throughput (737.3 GFLOPS vs 645.1 GFLOPS), and texture rate (23.04 GTexel/s vs 20.16 GTexel/s). It is the better card for OpenCL-based applications and general compute performance. Its nearest rival data shows it competing closely with the AMD FirePro M5100, trailing by only 1%, and leading the NVIDIA GeForce GT 1010 by 1%.

The FirePro W4100 wins in Vulkan, scoring 6496 against the R7 M370's 6465, a 0.5% edge. It also wins on memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs 57.60 GB/s), pixel rate (10.08 GPixel/s vs 7.680 GPixel/s), and in raw hardware resources: 512 shading units versus 384, 32 TMUs versus 24, and 16 ROPs versus 8. The FirePro W4100 carries a x16 bus interface and offers four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs, making it the more feature-complete professional card. Its nearest rival data shows it effectively tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at a 0% delta, which places it in a professional workstation performance tier.

For a user deciding between these two, the choice comes down to workload. OpenCL-centric tasks favor the R7 M370 by a wide margin. Vulkan-based tasks favor the FirePro W4100, but the advantage is small enough that the R7 M370's higher average score makes it the safer default choice. The FirePro W4100's larger memory bandwidth and higher pixel rate could matter in display-heavy or rasterization-focused professional workflows, while the R7 M370's compute throughput is the standout asset. Both cards are end-of-life products, so the decision is likely driven by what is available and what software the user actually runs.