AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M Comparison

AMD FirePro W4100 and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M represent two very different approaches to mobile graphics from the same era. The FirePro W4100 is a workstation-oriented card designed for compact, low-power systems, while the GTX 980M is a high-end consumer mobile GPU built for maximum performance in large laptops. The benchmark data shows a clear split between their intended workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark, but the scale of those wins tells the real story. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 980M scores 23832 against the FirePro W4100's 5478, a 77% advantage. In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 980M posts 17703 versus 6496, a 63.3% lead. These are not close contests; the GTX 980M is in a different performance class entirely.

The FirePro W4100 does not win any of the two head-to-head tests. However, its average benchmark score of 5987 is actually higher than the GTX 980M's average of 5308. This apparent contradiction resolves when you look at the benchmark pools. The FirePro W4100's average comes from just two OpenCL and Vulkan tests, while the GTX 980M's average includes ten tests, several of which are older DirectX and Passmark workloads where it scores relatively low (e.g., 35 in Passmark DirectX 10, 31 in Passmark DirectX 12). The GTX 980M's raw compute performance is vastly superior, but its average is dragged down by these legacy tests.

The GTX 980M dominates in compute-heavy workloads, which is where its 1536 shading units and 3.462 TFLOPS of FP32 performance become relevant. The FirePro W4100's 512 shading units and 645.1 GFLOPS position it as a card for basic workstation tasks like multi-monitor output and light CAD work, not heavy rendering. The GTX 980M's 8 GB memory capacity and 160.4 GB/s bandwidth also give it a massive advantage in texture-heavy scenes and larger datasets.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The FirePro W4100 uses GCN 1.0 (Cape Verde chip), while the GTX 980M uses Maxwell 2.0 (GM204 chip). Both are manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the similarity ends there.

The die sizes and transistor counts are dramatically different. The FirePro W4100 has 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.2M per mm². The GTX 980M packs 5,200 million transistors onto a 398 mm² die, with a density of 13.1M per mm². The GTX 980M's die is over three times larger, which directly translates to its massive advantage in every compute metric.

Memory configurations are also poles apart. The FirePro W4100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GTX 980M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus, delivering 160.4 GB/s. The GTX 980M also runs its memory at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus the FirePro's 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Clock speeds differ significantly. The GTX 980M has a base clock of 1038 MHz and a boost clock of 1127 MHz. The FirePro W4100 has no recorded base or boost clocks in the database, only a memory clock. This makes direct clock-to-clock comparison impossible, but the shading unit count tells the story: 1536 versus 512, exactly three times more.

The API support also differs. The FirePro W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The newer DirectX feature level on the GTX 980M gives it better compatibility with modern titles.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M is the superior performer in every measured category. It wins both head-to-head benchmarks by margins of 63% to 77%, has three times the shading units, four times the memory capacity, and over 2.5 times the memory bandwidth. The GTX 980M also has a higher transistor density (13.1M vs 12.2M per mm²), indicating a more efficient packing of compute resources.

Users who need raw compute performance, whether for gaming, GPU-accelerated rendering, or general-purpose compute, should choose the GTX 980M without hesitation. Its 3.462 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is over five times the FirePro W4100's 645.1 GFLOPS, and its 72.13 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 10.08 GPixel/s is a seven-fold advantage.

The FirePro W4100 is only relevant if you specifically need a single-slot, low-profile card with four mini-DisplayPort outputs and no external power connectors. Its 50 W TDP and 250 W suggested PSU make it suitable for compact workstations where the GTX 980M's MXM module form factor would not fit. But from a pure performance standpoint, the database shows no scenario where the FirePro W4100 is the better choice.

FAQ

Q: Which card has better compute performance?

A: The GTX 980M wins overwhelmingly. It scores 23832 in Geekbench OpenCL versus 5478 for the FirePro W4100, a 77% difference. In Geekbench Vulkan, it scores 17703 versus 6496, a 63.3% difference.

Q: Why does the FirePro W4100 have a higher average benchmark score?

A: The FirePro W4100's average of 5987 comes from only two tests (OpenCL and Vulkan), both of which are relatively strong. The GTX 980M's average of 5308 includes ten tests, several of which are legacy DirectX and Passmark workloads where it scores very low (e.g., 31 in Passmark DirectX 12, 35 in Passmark DirectX 10).

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: The GTX 980M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W4100 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 980M also runs faster memory at 1253 MHz versus 1000 MHz.

Q: What are the form factor differences?

A: The FirePro W4100 is a single-slot card measuring 171 mm in length and 69 mm in height, with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs and no power connectors. The GTX 980M is an MXM module with portable-device-dependent display outputs, designed for laptop integration.

Q: Which card has better API support?

A: The GTX 980M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro W4100 only supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6, but the GTX 980M has Vulkan 1.4 versus the FirePro's 1.2.170.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only two tests where both cards have recorded scores are Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan. The GTX 980M wins both decisively.

In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 980M scores 23832 against the FirePro W4100's 5478. This 77% delta (shown as -77% from the FirePro's perspective) is the largest margin in the entire comparison. The OpenCL test exercises general-purpose compute across all shading units, and the GTX 980M's 1536 units versus 512 makes the outcome predictable. The GTX 980M's 3.462 TFLOPS of FP32 performance is more than five times the FirePro's 645.1 GFLOPS, and this test reflects that raw throughput.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the GTX 980M scores 17703 versus 6496 for the FirePro W4100, a 63.3% difference. The smaller margin compared to OpenCL is interesting. Vulkan workloads often favor architectures with better driver overhead characteristics, and Maxwell 2.0 has a reputation for efficient draw call handling. Still, the GTX 980M's advantage in shading units, texture units (96 versus 32), and ROPs (64 versus 16) ensures it maintains a commanding lead.

The FirePro W4100's pixel rate of 10.08 GPixel/s and texture rate of 20.16 GTexel/s are dwarfed by the GTX 980M's 72.13 GPixel/s and 108.2 GTexel/s. These are not benchmark scores but derived specifications, and they confirm the same story: the GTX 980M is in a completely different performance tier.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ in nearly every measurable specification. The GTX 980M has 1536 shading units, 96 TMUs, and 64 ROPs, versus the FirePro W4100's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The GTX 980M's FP32 performance is 3.462 TFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS. Its pixel rate is 72.13 GPixel/s versus 10.08 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 108.2 GTexel/s versus 20.16 GTexel/s.

Memory is equally lopsided. The GTX 980M has 8 GB of GDDR5 on a 256-bit bus with 160.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W4100 has 2 GB on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s. The GTX 980M's memory clock is 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

The architectural details also diverge. The GTX 980M uses the Maxwell 2.0 architecture with a GM204 chip, built from 5,200 million transistors on a 398 mm² die. The FirePro W4100 uses GCN 1.0 with a Cape Verde chip, built from 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. Both use TSMC's 28 nm process, but the GTX 980M achieves a higher transistor density of 13.1M per mm² versus 12.2M per mm².

Form factor and power differ substantially. The FirePro W4100 is a single-slot card with no power connectors and a 50 W TDP, requiring a 250 W PSU. The GTX 980M is an MXM module with no recorded TDP or PSU recommendation. The FirePro W4100 has four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs; the GTX 980M's display outputs are portable-device dependent.

Both cards are end-of-life products. The FirePro W4100 was released on August 12, 2014, and its successor is Radeon Pro Polaris. The GTX 980M was released on October 6, 2014, with a successor of GeForce 10 Mobile. Their predecessors are FirePro Terascale and GeForce 800M, respectively.