AMD FirePro W4100 vs AMD Radeon R7 M465 Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4100 and AMD Radeon R7 M465 represent two distinct approaches to AMD's GCN architecture, one aimed at professional workstation tasks and the other at mobile consumer graphics. The data available paints a surprisingly close picture, with the Radeon R7 M465 edging ahead in the only directly comparable benchmark, yet the FirePro W4100 counters with a broader feature set and a higher overall benchmark average. This analysis will dissect the specifications and benchmark results to determine which card holds the advantage in specific scenarios, based solely on the provided facts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct head-to-head comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this benchmark, the AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5841, while the AMD FirePro W4100 scores 5478. The R7 M465 wins this encounter by a margin of 6.2%. This is a significant lead, suggesting that in raw compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, the newer GCN 3.0 architecture of the R7 M465 provides a tangible performance advantage over the FirePro W4100's GCN 1.0 design.

However, the story does not end with that single test. The FirePro W4100 also has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6496, a test that the R7 M465 has no corresponding result for in the data. This is a critical data point. While the R7 M465 wins the OpenCL test, the FirePro W4100 demonstrates a capability in the Vulkan API that is entirely unmeasured for its rival. When looking at the average benchmark score, which presumably aggregates all available tests, the FirePro W4100 pulls ahead with an average of 5987, compared to the R7 M465's 5841.

This creates an interesting dynamic. The R7 M465 is the clear winner in the one head-to-head test, but the FirePro W4100, by virtue of having a second, higher-scoring benchmark, achieves a higher overall average. The 6.2% deficit in OpenCL is the only quantified performance difference, but the FirePro's Vulkan score of 6496 suggests it has a performance headroom in that API that the R7 M465 cannot match, or at least, has not been tested to match.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, but they utilize different generations of AMD's Graphics Core Next (GCN) architecture. The FirePro W4100 is based on the older GCN 1.0, while the Radeon R7 M465 uses the more modern GCN 3.0. This generational leap is reflected in their respective chips and feature sets.

The FirePro W4100 uses the "Cape Verde" chip, which packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M / mm². In contrast, the R7 M465 uses the "Topaz" chip, which is slightly larger at 125 mm² and contains 1,550 million transistors, for a density of 12.4M / mm². While the physical differences are minor, the architectural generation is not. The R7 M465's GCN 3.0 architecture is newer and brings with it a higher DirectX support level of 12 (12_0), compared to the FirePro's 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The compute unit configuration also differs significantly. The FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The R7 M465 has fewer of each: 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This is a fundamental difference. The FirePro has a wider, more parallel design, while the R7 M465 is narrower. This explains why, despite the R7 M465 having a higher FP32 performance (786.4 GFLOPS vs 645.1 GFLOPS), the FirePro has a higher theoretical pixel rate (10.08 GPixel/s vs 8.192 GPixel/s). The FirePro's higher ROP count gives it an edge in fill-rate-bound scenarios, while the R7 M465's higher clocks and newer architecture boost its raw compute throughput, as evidenced by its FP32 and texture rate (24.58 GTexel/s vs 20.16 GTexel/s).

Where Each One Wins

Based on the data, the AMD Radeon R7 M465 wins in raw OpenCL compute performance. Its 6.2% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL test is a clear indication that for general-purpose GPU computing tasks that leverage this API, it is the faster card. Its higher FP32 rating of 786.4 GFLOPS, compared to the FirePro's 645.1 GFLOPS, reinforces this strength. This makes it the better choice for compute-heavy workloads that are not dependent on a specific professional driver certification.

The AMD FirePro W4100, on the other hand, wins in several other key areas. Its higher ROP count of 16, double that of the R7 M465's 8, gives it a theoretical advantage in pixel-fill-rate-bound tasks. Its pixel rate of 10.08 GPixel/s is superior to the R7 M465's 8.192 GPixel/s. Furthermore, the FirePro W4100 has a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, achieved through a 128-bit memory bus, compared to the R7 M465's 36.00 GB/s on a 64-bit bus. This is a substantial advantage for any workload that is sensitive to memory bandwidth, such as high-resolution textures or large framebuffers.

The FirePro W4100 also emerges as the more well-rounded card due to its higher average benchmark score of 5987 and its verified Vulkan performance. It also has a clear professional feature set, including four mini-DisplayPort outputs, a single-slot form factor, and a defined 50 W TDP with no power connectors required. The R7 M465 lacks any listed display outputs, slot width, or power specifications, making it a less-defined and likely more mobile-oriented part.

Specification Differences

The specifications reveal a clear division of labor between these two cards. The most striking differences are in memory configuration and compute resources.

• Memory Bus Width: The FirePro W4100 has a 128-bit bus, while the R7 M465 has a 64-bit bus.
• Memory Bandwidth: The FirePro W4100 offers 64.00 GB/s, significantly more than the R7 M465's 36.00 GB/s.
• Shading Units / TMUs / ROPs: The FirePro W4100 has 512/32/16, while the R7 M465 has 384/24/8.
• Core Clocks: The R7 M465 has defined base and boost clocks of 730 MHz and 1024 MHz, respectively. The FirePro W4100's core clocks are not listed in the data.
• Memory Clock: The R7 M465 runs its memory at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), whereas the FirePro W4100's memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).
• Pixel Rate: The FirePro W4100's rate is 10.08 GPixel/s, which is higher than the R7 M465's 8.192 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: The R7 M465's rate is 24.58 GTexel/s, which is higher than the FirePro W4100's 20.16 GTexel/s.
• FP32 Performance: The R7 M465's 786.4 GFLOPS exceeds the FirePro W4100's 645.1 GFLOPS.
• FP16 Performance: The R7 M465 has FP16 capability at 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1), while the FirePro W4100 has no listed FP16 performance.
• Bus Interface: The FirePro W4100 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the R7 M465 uses PCIe 3.0 x8.
• Power and Physical: The FirePro W4100 is specified as a 50 W, single-slot card with no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU. The R7 M465 has no power or physical dimensions listed.
• DirectX Support: The R7 M465 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), a higher feature level than the FirePro W4100's 12 (11_1).

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has a higher average benchmark score of 5987, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M465's score of 5841.

Q: How much faster is the Radeon R7 M465 in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The R7 M465 scores 5841 in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 6.2% higher than the FirePro W4100's score of 5478.

Q: Does the FirePro W4100 support the Vulkan API?

A: Yes, the FirePro W4100 has a Geekbench Vulkan score of 6496 and both cards support Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What is the key memory bandwidth difference?

A: The FirePro W4100 has a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, which is nearly double the R7 M465's 36.00 GB/s, due to its wider 128-bit bus versus the 64-bit bus on the R7 M465.

Q: Which card has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The FirePro W4100 has a higher pixel rate of 10.08 GPixel/s, surpassing the R7 M465's 8.192 GPixel/s, thanks to its 16 ROPs compared to 8.

Q: Are both GPUs manufactured on the same process node?

A: Yes, both the AMD FirePro W4100 and the AMD Radeon R7 M465 are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, though they use different GCN architecture generations (1.0 vs 3.0).

The Verdict

The data suggests two distinct use cases. The AMD Radeon R7 M465 is the pick for raw compute throughput. Its 6.2% lead in the OpenCL benchmark and higher FP32 performance (786.4 GFLOPS) make it the superior choice for general-purpose compute workloads that are not bound by memory bandwidth or pixel fill rate. Its newer GCN 3.0 architecture and support for DirectX 12 (12_0) also give it a modern feature advantage.

The AMD FirePro W4100, conversely, is the more balanced and professional-oriented card. Its higher average benchmark score of 5987, driven by a strong Vulkan result of 6496, indicates better all-around performance. Its massive memory bandwidth advantage (64.00 GB/s) and higher pixel rate (10.08 GPixel/s) make it better suited for graphics-intensive tasks, high-resolution rendering, and any workload where moving data quickly is critical. Its professional feature set, including four mini-DisplayPort outputs and a single-slot, low-power design, is clearly aimed at workstation environments. For a user prioritizing compute performance in a single API, the R7 M465 is the winner. For those needing a versatile, bandwidth-rich, and professionally-featured card with a higher overall benchmark score, the FirePro W4100 is the more compelling option.