AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between the two GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M takes both head-to-head victories, winning in Geekbench OpenCL with a score of 7176 against the AMD FirePro W4100's 5478, a margin of 23.7%. The Vulkan test is far closer, with the GTX 765M scoring 6714 versus the FirePro W4100's 6496, a 3.2% edge. That means the NVIDIA part wins in compute-heavy workloads and in graphics API workloads, while the AMD card trails in both measured categories.

The FirePro W4100 does not claim a single win in the shared test suite. Its best relative showing comes in Vulkan, where the gap narrows to 3.2%, suggesting that the AMD architecture is more competitive in that particular API. Still, the data records zero wins for the FirePro W4100 and two for the GeForce GTX 765M. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the FirePro W4100 sits at 5987, while the GTX 765M averages 5501. But those averages are computed over different test sets, so the head-to-head numbers are the more reliable comparison. The OpenCL result is the clear outlier, with the GTX 765M delivering a substantial 31% higher raw score than the FirePro W4100's 5478. In Vulkan, the difference is modest enough that real-world performance would likely feel comparable.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different design philosophies. The AMD FirePro W4100 uses the Cape Verde chip built on GCN 1.0 architecture, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,500 million transistors into a 123 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 12.2 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M uses the GK106 chip with Kepler architecture, also on TSMC's 28 nm node, but with 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, resulting in a lower density of 11.5 million per square millimeter. The NVIDIA die is nearly 80% larger and holds 69% more transistors, which explains its higher compute resources.

Shader configuration differs significantly. The FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster output units. The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, 64 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. That means the NVIDIA part has 50% more shaders and double the texture units, yet the same ROP count. The clock speeds reinforce this imbalance: the GTX 765M runs at a base of 797 MHz and boosts to 863 MHz, while the FirePro W4100 has no recorded base or boost clock. Memory is similar on paper: both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, with bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s for the AMD part and 64.13 GB/s for the NVIDIA part, a negligible difference. Pixel rate favors the GTX 765M at 13.81 GPixel/s versus 10.08 GPixel/s, and texture rate is dramatically higher on the NVIDIA part at 55.23 GTexel/s versus 20.16 GTexel/s. FP32 compute also favors the GTX 765M at 1,325.6 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS, a 105% advantage.

The FirePro W4100 is a single-slot workstation card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and a 50 W TDP, requiring a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 765M is an MXM module with a 75 W TDP and no suggested PSU listed, with display outputs described as portable device dependent. API support is close: both support DirectX 12, but the FirePro W4100 lists 12 (11_1) while the GTX 765M lists 12 (11_0). OpenGL is 4.6 on both, and Vulkan support is 1.2.170 on the AMD side versus 1.2.175 on the NVIDIA side.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Geekbench OpenCL test delivers the most decisive result. The GTX 765M scores 7176, which is 23.7% higher than the FirePro W4100's 5478. This aligns with the hardware specifications: the GTX 765M has more shading units, more TMUs, and more than double the FP32 throughput. OpenCL workloads that scale with compute units will consistently favor the NVIDIA part. The margin is large enough that any compute task, from physics simulation to video encoding, should show a measurable advantage on the GTX 765M.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a different story. Here the GTX 765M scores 6714 against the FirePro W4100's 6496, a difference of only 3.2%. The AMD card's Vulkan driver appears to extract more efficiency from its smaller hardware, or the workload itself is less compute-bound and more balanced across the two architectures. Either way, the recorded data shows that in Vulkan-based graphics tasks, the two GPUs are close enough that other system factors would likely determine the winner.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the FirePro W4100's average score of 5987 places it near the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5986 (0% delta), the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (0.1% delta), and the NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Server at 5996 (0.2% delta). The GTX 765M's average of 5501 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 at 5508 (0.1% delta), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483 (0.3% delta), and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5467 (0.6% delta). These proximity values confirm that both GPUs sit in a similar performance tier overall, even though the head-to-head OpenCL test shows a wide gap.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M wins decisively, scoring 7176 versus the AMD FirePro W4100's 5478, a 23.7% advantage.

Q: How close is the Vulkan performance between the two?

A: The GTX 765M still wins, but by only 3.2%, scoring 6714 against the FirePro W4100's 6496.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes, both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The FirePro W4100 has 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, and the GTX 765M has 64.13 GB/s, a negligible difference.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 765M has 768 shading units, while the FirePro W4100 has 512, a 50% difference.

Q: What are the TDP requirements for each card?

A: The FirePro W4100 has a 50 W TDP with a 250 W suggested PSU. The GTX 765M has a 75 W TDP, with no suggested PSU listed.

Q: What is the transistor count difference?

A: The GTX 765M contains 2,540 million transistors, while the FirePro W4100 has 1,500 million, a difference of 1,040 million.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is the stronger performer in the shared benchmark suite. It wins both head-to-head tests, with a commanding lead in OpenCL and a narrow but consistent lead in Vulkan. Its hardware specifications support this outcome: more shading units, double the TMUs, higher pixel rate, higher texture rate, and more than double the FP32 compute. The GTX 765M is the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks and for any workload that leverages OpenCL or Vulkan.

The AMD FirePro W4100 does have a place. Its Vulkan score of 6496 is only 3.2% behind the GTX 765M, meaning that in Vulkan-based graphics workloads, the difference may be imperceptible in practice. The FirePro W4100 also draws less power at 50 W versus 75 W, and it comes in a single-slot form factor with four mini-DisplayPort outputs, making it a practical option for multi-display workstation setups. Its 250 W suggested PSU requirement is modest, and its smaller die size and lower transistor count suggest it may be more efficient in specific constrained environments.

For a user choosing between the two based purely on benchmark performance, the GTX 765M is the answer. It delivers a 23.7% advantage in OpenCL and a 3.2% advantage in Vulkan. The FirePro W4100's only strengths are its lower power draw and workstation-oriented display outputs, which are not reflected in the benchmark scores. The data does not show any test where the FirePro W4100 outperforms the GTX 765M, so the verdict is straightforward: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is the faster GPU.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD FirePro W4100 | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M |

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

| Chip | Cape Verde | GK106 |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler |

| Transistors | 1,500 million | 2,540 million |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 221 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.2M / mm² | 11.5M / mm² |

| Base Clock | Not recorded | 797 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not recorded | 863 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) | 1002 MHz (4 Gbps effective) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 64.13 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 512 | 768 |

| TMUs | 32 | 64 |

| ROPs | 16 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 10.08 GPixel/s | 13.81 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 20.16 GTexel/s | 55.23 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 645.1 GFLOPS | 1,325.6 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 50 W | 75 W |

| Slot Width | Single-slot | MXM Module |

| Suggested PSU | 250 W | Not recorded |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |

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

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

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.175 |

| Length | 171 mm (6.7 inches) | Not recorded |

| Height | 69 mm (2.7 inches) | Not recorded |

| Release Date | 2014-08-12 | 2013-05-29 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Terascale | GeForce 600M |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Polaris | GeForce 800M |

The two GPUs share the same process node, memory size, memory type, memory bus width, ROP count, OpenGL version, and power connector requirement (none). They differ in nearly every other measurable specification, with the NVIDIA part holding the advantage in raw compute resources and the AMD part offering a lower power envelope and workstation display connectivity.