AMD FirePro W4100 vs AMD Radeon R7 M440 Comparison

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro W4100 and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 represent two distinct branches of AMD’s graphics lineup, separated by both design intent and time. The FirePro W4100 is built on the Cape Verde chip using the GCN 1.0 architecture, while the Radeon R7 M440 uses the Meso chip with the newer GCN 3.0 architecture. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, giving them a shared manufacturing foundation despite their architectural divergence.

The FirePro W4100’s Cape Verde die contains 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The Radeon R7 M440’s Meso die is slightly larger at 125 mm² and packs 1,550 million transistors, resulting in a marginally higher density of 12.4M per mm². These are very close figures, indicating that the two chips are comparable in physical scale, though their internal configurations differ considerably.

In terms of compute resources, the FirePro W4100 is the more generously equipped part. It features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The Radeon R7 M440, by contrast, scales down to 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and only 8 ROPs. This is a significant hardware disparity that directly influences the performance numbers seen in benchmark results. The FirePro W4100 also offers higher theoretical throughput rates: its pixel rate is 10.08 GPixel/s and its texture rate is 20.16 GTexel/s, whereas the R7 M440 posts 7.128 GPixel/s and 17.82 GTexel/s respectively. In floating-point compute, the W4100 reaches 645.1 GFLOPS for FP32, while the R7 M440 manages 570.2 GFLOPS. Notably, the R7 M440 has a 1:1 FP16 rate of 570.2 GFLOPS, a feature absent from the W4100’s specification sheet.

Memory architecture also sets these two apart. The FirePro W4100 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R7 M440 instead relies on 4 GB of DDR3 memory on a much narrower 64-bit bus, resulting in only 14.40 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M440’s memory clock is 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), while the W4100’s memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). This bandwidth gap is enormous and likely explains much of the performance difference despite the R7 M440’s larger frame buffer.

The two cards also differ in their integration approach. The FirePro W4100 is a single-slot, 50 W discrete card that requires no power connectors and suggests a 250 W power supply. It uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface and provides four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The Radeon R7 M440 is listed as an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and display outputs described as “Portable Device Dependent,” reflecting its mobile-oriented design. The R7 M440 has no listed TDP, slot width, power connector, or suggested PSU, consistent with its role as a laptop part. The W4100 measures 171 mm in length and 69 mm in height, while the R7 M440 has no recorded dimensions.

API support is similar but not identical. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. For DirectX, the R7 M440 lists version 12 (12_0), while the W4100 lists 12 (11_1), indicating the newer architecture on the R7 M440 supports a slightly more modern DirectX feature level. The W4100 was released earlier, on 2014-08-12, and belongs to the FirePro GCN (Wx100) generation. The R7 M440 followed on 2016-05-14, as part of the Gem System (R7 M400) generation. Each has distinct lineage: the W4100’s predecessor is FirePro Terascale and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris, while the R7 M440’s predecessor is Solar System and its successor is Polaris Mobile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data in the database records two head-to-head tests between these GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. In both, the AMD FirePro W4100 emerges as the winner, taking all two recorded victories against zero for the Radeon R7 M440.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro W4100 scores 5,478 points, while the Radeon R7 M440 trails at 5,214 points. This gives the W4100 a 5.1% advantage. That margin is modest but consistent, and it aligns with the W4100’s higher shading unit count and far superior memory bandwidth. The R7 M440’s 4 GB of DDR3 cannot compensate for its narrow 64-bit bus and lower compute throughput in this workload.

The gap widens substantially in the Geekbench Vulkan test. Here, the FirePro W4100 posts 6,496 points against 5,751 for the R7 M440, a 13% lead. Vulkan’s lower-level API tends to expose raw hardware capabilities more directly, and the W4100’s architectural advantages become more apparent under these conditions. The 13% delta is the largest single difference recorded between the two parts in any measurement.

Looking at broader database metrics, the FirePro W4100 has an average benchmark score of 5,987, placing it in the 34th percentile of all GPUs. The Radeon R7 M440 averages 5,483, sitting at the 32nd percentile. That two-percentile gap is small in the grand scheme of the database, but the W4100’s consistent wins in both individual tests show it holds a clear edge. The W4100’s nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5,986 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5,982 (0.1% delta), the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5,996 (-0.2% delta), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 770M at 6,000 (-0.2% delta). This places the W4100 in a tight cluster where its performance is essentially on par with several mid-range workstation and gaming GPUs from its era.

The Radeon R7 M440’s nearest rivals are a slightly different set: the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5,467 (0.3% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M at 5,501 (-0.3% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5,508 (-0.5% delta), and the AMD Radeon 610M at 5,444 (0.7% delta). These deltas are all within 0.7%, meaning the R7 M440 sits in a very tight performance band with these competitors, none of which are particularly high-flying parts. The R7 M440 is thus a mid-to-low tier performer, while the W4100, despite its older architecture, manages to hold its own against slightly stronger company.

The data suggests that the FirePro W4100’s advantages in shading units, ROPs, and memory bandwidth translate directly into measurable performance gains. The R7 M440’s newer GCN 3.0 architecture and higher DirectX feature level do not overcome these fundamental hardware gaps. For users prioritizing compute and graphics throughput, the W4100 is the stronger choice in every recorded benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in Geekbench OpenCL performance?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 wins with a score of 5,478 against 5,214 for the AMD Radeon R7 M440, a 5.1% advantage.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap between the two cards?

A: The FirePro W4100 scores 6,496 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the R7 M440 scores 5,751. That is a 13% lead for the W4100, the largest margin in any recorded test.

Q: What are the memory differences between the two GPUs?

A: The FirePro W4100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R7 M440 has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with only 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same DirectX version?

A: No. The Radeon R7 M440 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the FirePro W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The FirePro W4100 has an average benchmark score of 5,987, and the Radeon R7 M440 averages 5,483. The W4100 sits at the 34th percentile of all GPUs, while the R7 M440 is at the 32nd percentile.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units, compared to 320 on the Radeon R7 M440. The W4100 also has 32 TMUs and 16 ROPs, versus 20 TMUs and 8 ROPs on the R7 M440.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4100 | AMD Radeon R7 M440 |

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

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Chip | Cape Verde | Meso |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Memory Size | 2 GB | 4 GB |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

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

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

| Shading Units | 512 | 320 |

| TMUs | 32 | 20 |

| ROPs | 16 | 8 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.08 GPixel/s | 7.128 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.16 GTexel/s | 17.82 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 645.1 GFLOPS | 570.2 GFLOPS |

| FP16 | Not listed | 570.2 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| TDP | 50 W | Not listed |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | IGP |

| Power Connectors | None | Not listed |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not listed |

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

| Display Outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 | Portable Device Dependent |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Dimensions | 171 mm x 69 mm | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2014-08-12 | 2016-05-14 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | Solar System |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | Polaris Mobile |

The Verdict

The AMD FirePro W4100 is the clear winner in every recorded benchmark comparison. It takes both head-to-head tests, winning Geekbench OpenCL by 5.1% and Geekbench Vulkan by 13%. Its average benchmark score of 5,987 also outpaces the R7 M440’s 5,483, and it holds a higher percentile ranking at 34 versus 32. The W4100’s architectural strengths, including 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, 16 ROPs, and a 128-bit GDDR5 memory interface with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, prove decisive against the R7 M440’s 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, 8 ROPs, and narrow 64-bit DDR3 bus.

Buyers who need a discrete workstation card with four mini-DisplayPort outputs, a single-slot form factor, and a known 50 W power envelope should choose the FirePro W4100. Its older GCN 1.0 architecture and slightly lower DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 12_0) do not hinder it in the recorded OpenCL and Vulkan workloads, where it consistently leads.

The Radeon R7 M440, meanwhile, is a mobile-oriented IGP with no listed TDP, no dimensions, and display outputs that depend on the host device. Its 4 GB frame buffer is twice the W4100’s, but that capacity comes with a severe bandwidth penalty that the benchmarks reflect. It also supports DirectX 12_0, which is a newer feature level, and offers FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio, but these features do not translate into higher scores in the database’s measurements.

For users who prioritize raw compute performance, memory bandwidth, and a proven track record in workstation-class tasks, the FirePro W4100 is the better part. The R7 M440 is more suitable for a portable device where its integrated nature and lower resource footprint matter more than peak performance. The data does not support choosing the R7 M440 on performance grounds alone.