AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M Comparison

# AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M

The AMD FirePro W4100 and NVIDIA GeForce 840M represent two very different design philosophies from the same 28 nm era, one aimed at professional workstation tasks and the other at mobile consumer computing. The recorded data shows a split decision: the FirePro W4100 wins the Vulkan benchmark by a substantial margin, while the GeForce 840M takes the OpenCL test, leaving the overall head-to-head at one win each. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story, with the FirePro at 5987 and the 840M at 5322, a difference of roughly 12.5% in favor of the AMD part, yet the percentile rankings place the FirePro at 34 and the 840M at 31, indicating both sit in a similar low-to-mid tier of the overall GPU landscape.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 records an average benchmark score of 5987, compared to the NVIDIA GeForce 840M's 5322, making the FirePro the higher-scoring part by about 12.5%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M wins the geekbench_opencl test with a score of 5764 against the AMD FirePro W4100's 5478, a delta of -5% from the AMD part's perspective.

Q: Which GPU dominates the Vulkan benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 wins geekbench_vulkan decisively with a score of 6496 versus the GeForce 840M's 4880, a 33.1% advantage for the AMD card.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each GPU?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has a memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s using GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M has 16.02 GB/s using DDR3 on a 64-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has the higher transistor count and die size?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 packs 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M contains 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Q: What is the power consumption difference between the two?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has a TDP of 50 W, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M is rated at 33 W, making the NVIDIA part the lower-power option.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is fundamental. The AMD FirePro W4100 is built on GCN 1.0 architecture with the Cape Verde chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce 840M uses Maxwell with the GM108S chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor densities differ slightly: the FirePro achieves 12.2M transistors per mm², while the 840M reaches 13.2M per mm², a difference that reflects the smaller, more condensed Maxwell design.

The FirePro W4100 contains 1,500 million transistors spread across a 123 mm² die, whereas the GeForce 840M has 1,020 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die. This larger die area for the AMD part allows for more execution resources: 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines, compared to the 840M's 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. In raw throughput terms, the FirePro delivers 645.1 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, 20.16 GTexel/s of texture fill, and 10.08 GPixel/s of pixel fill. The 840M counters with higher FP32 at 863.2 GFLOPS, but lower texture rate at 17.98 GTexel/s and pixel rate at 8.992 GPixel/s.

Memory architecture diverges sharply as well. The FirePro W4100 uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce 840M also has 2 GB, but it is DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, resulting in just 16.02 GB/s. This fourfold bandwidth gap is a defining characteristic of the two designs, with the AMD card clearly optimized for data-intensive workloads.

Clock behavior also differs. The 840M has explicit base and boost clocks of 1029 MHz and 1124 MHz respectively, while the FirePro W4100 lists no base or boost clock in the data, only a memory clock of 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective data rate. The 840M's memory runs at 1001 MHz with 2 Gbps effective.

The feature set and interface reflect their intended environments. The FirePro W4100 is a single-slot PCIe 3.0 x16 card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and a suggested PSU of 250 W. The GeForce 840M is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface and portable-device-dependent display outputs. API support is similar but not identical: both support DirectX 12 and OpenGL 4.6, but the FirePro's DirectX 12 is at the 11_1 feature level while the 840M is at 11_0, and the 840M lists Vulkan 1.4 versus the FirePro's Vulkan 1.2.170.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for different use cases. The AMD FirePro W4100 is the stronger choice for Vulkan-based workloads and any application that relies on memory bandwidth. Its 64.00 GB/s of GDDR5 bandwidth, combined with 512 shading units and 32 TMUs, gives it a structural advantage in texture-heavy and compute-oriented tasks. The 33.1% Vulkan win over the 840M is the single largest margin in the head-to-head data, and its average benchmark score of 5987 places it 12.5% ahead of the NVIDIA part. For professional or workstation scenarios where OpenCL performance is secondary to memory throughput and Vulkan capability, the FirePro W4100 is the better fit.

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M, by contrast, wins the OpenCL test with a score of 5764 versus 5478, a 5% margin. Its higher FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS, despite fewer shading units, suggests better per-clock efficiency from the Maxwell architecture. The 840M also consumes less power at 33 W versus 50 W, making it the more energy-efficient option. For users whose primary workload is OpenCL-based and who prioritize power efficiency, the 840M has a legitimate claim.

However, the overall data favors the FirePro W4100. Its average benchmark score is higher, its Vulkan advantage is overwhelming, and its memory subsystem is in a different class entirely. The nearest rivals for the FirePro, including the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M and K4000, sit within 0.1% of its score, indicating it performs at a solid mid-tier workstation level. The 840M's rivals, such as the GeForce 930A and 940M, are within 0.7%, showing it is competitive within its mobile consumer segment.

The verdict: choose the AMD FirePro W4100 for Vulkan-centric workloads, memory-bandwidth-heavy tasks, and workstation-oriented compute. Choose the NVIDIA GeForce 840M for OpenCL-focused applications where lower power draw and higher FP32 throughput matter more than memory bandwidth.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every hardware specification recorded in the database.

• Chip and Architecture: AMD FirePro W4100 uses Cape Verde with GCN 1.0; NVIDIA GeForce 840M uses GM108S with Maxwell.
• Process Node and Foundry: Both are 28 nm from TSMC, but transistor density differs: 12.2M / mm² for AMD, 13.2M / mm² for NVIDIA.
• Transistors and Die Size: AMD has 1,500 million transistors on 123 mm²; NVIDIA has 1,020 million on 77 mm².
• Clocks: AMD lists no base or boost clock, memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective); NVIDIA lists base 1029 MHz, boost 1124 MHz, memory at 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective).
• Memory: AMD has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth; NVIDIA has 2 GB DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.02 GB/s bandwidth.
• Shading Units: AMD has 512; NVIDIA has 384.
• TMUs: AMD has 32; NVIDIA has 16.
• ROPs: AMD has 16; NVIDIA has 8.
• Pixel Rate: AMD at 10.08 GPixel/s; NVIDIA at 8.992 GPixel/s.
• Texture Rate: AMD at 20.16 GTexel/s; NVIDIA at 17.98 GTexel/s.
• FP32: AMD at 645.1 GFLOPS; NVIDIA at 863.2 GFLOPS.
• TDP: AMD at 50 W; NVIDIA at 33 W.
• Slot Width: AMD is single-slot; NVIDIA is IGP.
• Power Connectors: Both have none.
• Suggested PSU: AMD lists 250 W; NVIDIA lists none.
• Bus Interface: AMD uses PCIe 3.0 x16; NVIDIA uses PCIe 3.0 x8.
• Display Outputs: AMD has 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2; NVIDIA is portable-device dependent.
• DirectX Support: AMD at 12 (11_1); NVIDIA at 12 (11_0).
• Vulkan Support: AMD at 1.2.170; NVIDIA at 1.4.
• Release Date: AMD on 2014-08-12; NVIDIA on 2014-03-11.
• Production Status: Both are end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data records two benchmark tests, and each GPU takes one victory. The margins, however, are not symmetrical.

In geekbench_opencl, the NVIDIA GeForce 840M scores 5764 against the AMD FirePro W4100's 5478, a delta of -5% from the AMD perspective. This is a modest win for NVIDIA, reflecting the 840M's higher FP32 throughput of 863.2 GFLOPS. The Maxwell architecture appears to extract more compute performance from fewer shading units, and the OpenCL test seems to favor that efficiency. The 840M's 384 shading units outperform the FirePro's 512 units in this specific workload, which suggests the FirePro's additional hardware is not always fully utilized in OpenCL.

In geekbench_vulkan, the situation reverses dramatically. The AMD FirePro W4100 scores 6496 versus the GeForce 840M's 4880, a 33.1% advantage for AMD. This is the largest margin in the entire comparison. The FirePro's memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, four times that of the 840M, likely plays a significant role here. Vulkan workloads often stress memory throughput, and the GDDR5 implementation on a 128-bit bus gives the AMD card a structural edge that the 840M's DDR3 on a 64-bit bus simply cannot match. The FirePro's higher texture rate of 20.16 GTexel/s and pixel rate of 10.08 GPixel/s may also contribute to this substantial win.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the overall picture. The FirePro W4100 averages 5987, while the 840M averages 5322. This 665-point gap represents a 12.5% advantage for the AMD card. The percentileVsAllGpus rankings show 34 for the FirePro and 31 for the 840M, confirming that while both are in the lower half of all GPUs, the AMD part sits slightly higher.

Examining the nearest rivals provides additional context. The FirePro W4100's closest competitor is the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M with an average score of 5986, just one point behind, and the Quadro K4000 at 5982, a 0.1% delta. The NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server scores 5996, only 0.2% ahead, and the GeForce GTX 770M scores 6000, also 0.2% ahead. This clustering suggests the FirePro W4100 performs at a very specific performance tier, essentially matching several professional and mobile parts from its era.

The GeForce 840M's rivals are similarly tight. The GeForce 930A scores 5317, a 0.1% delta, and the GeForce GTX 980M scores 5308, a 0.3% delta. The AMD Radeon R7 M445 scores 5358, 0.7% ahead, and the GeForce 940M scores 5284, 0.7% behind. This shows the 840M is firmly planted in a narrow performance band, with no single rival dominating it.

The head-to-head data, with one win each, does not tell the full story. The magnitude of the Vulkan victory for the FirePro W4100, at 33.1%, far outweighs the 5% OpenCL margin for the 840M. Users should weigh these margins according to their workload priorities, but the data suggests the AMD FirePro W4100 offers the more decisive performance advantage in at least one major API, while the NVIDIA part's win is comparatively narrow.