AMD FirePro W4100 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins in overall benchmark performance?

A: The head-to-head results are split. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 5739 versus 5478 for the AMD FirePro W4100, a 4.8% advantage. The AMD FirePro W4100 wins the Geekbench Vulkan test with 6496 versus 6414, a 1.3% margin. Each card claims one victory.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The MX230 has an average benchmark score of 6077, placing it essentially level with the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078, 0% delta) and 0.5% ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro P2000 (6049). The FirePro W4100 averages 5987, matching the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M (5986, 0% delta) and sitting 0.1% above the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 (5982).

Q: What are the key architectural differences between the two cards?

A: The MX230 uses NVIDIA's Pascal architecture on a 14 nm Samsung process with 1,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The FirePro W4100 uses AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm TSMC process with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die. The MX230 packs 256 shading units, while the FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro W4100 has significantly higher memory bandwidth at 64.00 GB/s, thanks to a 128-bit memory bus. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 has 48.06 GB/s bandwidth from a 64-bit bus. Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the FirePro W4100's memory runs at 4 Gbps effective versus 6 Gbps effective on the MX230.

Q: How do the power requirements differ?

A: The MX230 is a 10 W part with an integrated form factor (IGP) and no power connectors. The FirePro W4100 is a 50 W single-slot card with no power connectors but a suggested PSU of 250 W. The MX230 is clearly designed for power-constrained systems, while the FirePro W4100 requires a more substantial power supply.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each GPU?

A: The MX230 sits at the 35th percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro W4100 is at the 34th percentile. These are nearly identical positions, confirming that the two cards perform in the same tier despite their architectural differences.

---

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and AMD FirePro W4100 represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The MX230 is built on NVIDIA's Pascal architecture using a 14 nm process from Samsung, packing 1,800 million transistors into a compact 74 mm² die. This yields an impressive transistor density of 24.3 million transistors per mm². The FirePro W4100, by contrast, uses AMD's older GCN 1.0 architecture on TSMC's 28 nm process, with 1,500 million transistors spread across a larger 123 mm² die, resulting in a density of just 12.2 million transistors per mm².

The compute configuration differs substantially. The MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 16 raster operation units (ROPs). The FirePro W4100 doubles the shading units to 512 and TMUs to 32, while keeping the same 16 ROPs. Despite having half the shading units, the MX230 achieves higher raw FP32 throughput at 783.9 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS for the FirePro W4100, thanks to its higher clock speeds. The MX230's pixel rate is 24.50 GPixel/s versus 10.08 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 24.50 GTexel/s versus 20.16 GTexel/s.

The MX230 is a 10 W part with an integrated form factor, while the FirePro W4100 draws 50 W and comes as a single-slot card with four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs. The MX230's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," reflecting its intended use in laptops and compact systems. The FirePro W4100 connects via PCIe 3.0 x16, while the MX230 uses PCIe 3.0 x4. The FirePro W4100's memory operates at 4 Gbps effective versus 6 Gbps on the MX230, but the wider 128-bit bus gives the AMD card a bandwidth advantage at 64.00 GB/s versus 48.06 GB/s.

API support differs as well. The MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W4100 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX230 also has FP16 capability at 12.25 GFLOPS (1:64 ratio), while the FirePro W4100 has no listed FP16 support.

---

The Verdict

The data presents a balanced picture. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins the OpenCL benchmark by 4.8%, while the AMD FirePro W4100 wins Vulkan by 1.3%. The average scores are 6077 for the MX230 and 5987 for the FirePro W4100, a difference of just 1.5%. Both cards sit at the 34-35th percentile among all GPUs, confirming they belong to the same performance class.

Choose the MX230 if you need lower power consumption, a more modern architecture, and stronger OpenCL performance. Its 10 W TDP and integrated form factor make it suitable for thin-and-light systems. The Pascal architecture also brings higher transistor density and better FP32 throughput per watt.

Choose the FirePro W4100 if you prioritize memory bandwidth, professional display outputs, or Vulkan performance. The 128-bit memory bus provides 64.00 GB/s versus 48.06 GB/s, and the four mini-DisplayPort outputs support multi-monitor workstation setups. Its 512 shading units offer headroom for workloads that scale with shader count, even if the overall clock speeds are lower.

The FirePro W4100 is the older card, released in 2014 versus 2019 for the MX230. Both are now end-of-life products. The FirePro W4100 has a clear successor in the Radeon Pro Polaris line, while the MX230 has no listed successor. For legacy workstation applications that favor AMD's GCN architecture, the FirePro W4100 remains a viable option. For energy-sensitive deployments, the MX230's 10 W draw is a decisive advantage.

---

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The MX230 uses a 14 nm Samsung process, while the FirePro W4100 uses a 28 nm TSMC process. Transistor counts are 1,800 million versus 1,500 million, and die sizes are 74 mm² versus 123 mm². Transistor density is 24.3 million per mm² on the MX230 versus 12.2 million per mm² on the FirePro W4100.

Clock speeds show the MX230 with a base clock of 1519 MHz and boost clock of 1531 MHz, while the FirePro W4100 has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective) on the MX230 versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on the FirePro W4100.

Memory configuration: both have 2 GB GDDR5, but the MX230 uses a 64-bit bus with 48.06 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W4100 uses a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units: the MX230 has 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. The FirePro W4100 has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rates are 24.50 GPixel/s versus 10.08 GPixel/s; texture rates are 24.50 GTexel/s versus 20.16 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 783.9 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS. The MX230 has FP16 support at 12.25 GFLOPS; the FirePro W4100 has none listed.

Power and physical specs: the MX230 draws 10 W with an IGP form factor and no power connectors. The FirePro W4100 draws 50 W, is single-slot, has no power connectors, and suggests a 250 W PSU. The FirePro W4100 measures 171 mm (6.7 inches) in length and 69 mm (2.7 inches) in height. The MX230 has no listed dimensions.

Bus interfaces: PCIe 3.0 x4 for the MX230 versus PCIe 3.0 x16 for the FirePro W4100. Display outputs: "Portable Device Dependent" for the MX230 versus 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.2 for the FirePro W4100. API support: DirectX 12 (12_1) versus DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6 for both, Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170.

Release dates: the MX230 launched on 2019-02-20, the FirePro W4100 on 2014-08-12. The FirePro W4100 lists a predecessor (FirePro Terascale) and successor (Radeon Pro Polaris); the MX230 lists neither.

---

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The two benchmark tests tell a consistent story of near-parity with distinct strengths. In Geekbench OpenCL, the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 5739 against 5478 for the AMD FirePro W4100, a 4.8% victory for NVIDIA. This is the larger margin in either test and indicates that the MX230's higher clock speeds and newer architecture translate into better compute performance in OpenCL workloads.

In Geekbench Vulkan, the AMD FirePro W4100 reverses the result, scoring 6496 against 6414 for the MX230, a 1.3% margin. This is a smaller advantage, suggesting that the FirePro W4100's 512 shading units provide some benefit in Vulkan workloads, even though its overall compute throughput is lower.

The average benchmark scores reflect this balance: 6077 for the MX230 versus 5987 for the FirePro W4100. The MX230's average is 1.5% higher, but the margin is small enough that real-world application performance would likely vary depending on the workload.

The nearest rival data reinforces the mid-range positioning. The MX230's closest competitor is the NVIDIA RTX A400 at 6078 (0% delta), followed by the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 at 6117 (-0.7% delta). The FirePro W4100's closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro K4000M at 5986 (0% delta), with the NVIDIA Quadro K4000 at 5982 (0.1% delta) close behind. Both cards sit in a dense cluster of GPUs scoring between roughly 5980 and 6120.

---

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins in scenarios that favor raw compute throughput and power efficiency. Its OpenCL score of 5739 is 4.8% higher than the FirePro W4100's 5478, making it the better choice for OpenCL-based applications. The MX230 also delivers higher FP32 performance (783.9 GFLOPS versus 645.1 GFLOPS), higher pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s versus 10.08 GPixel/s), and higher texture rate (24.50 GTexel/s versus 20.16 GTexel/s). Its 10 W TDP versus 50 W makes it dramatically more power-efficient, and the integrated form factor suits compact systems where space and cooling are limited. The MX230 also supports newer API versions, including Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170 and DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1).

The AMD FirePro W4100 wins in scenarios that benefit from memory bandwidth, shader count, and workstation features. Its 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is 33% higher than the MX230's 48.06 GB/s, which matters for memory-intensive workloads. The 512 shading units (double the MX230's 256) can help in shader-bound tasks, even if the overall clock speeds are lower. The four mini-DisplayPort 1.2 outputs provide multi-monitor capability out of the box, while the MX230's display outputs are dependent on the host portable device. The FirePro W4100 also wins the Vulkan benchmark at 6496 versus 6414, making it the preferred choice for Vulkan-based rendering. Its PCIe 3.0 x16 interface offers eight times the lane count of the MX230's x4 connection, which can reduce data transfer bottlenecks in some workloads.

For use-case planning: pick the MX230 for battery-powered laptops, compact systems, or OpenCL compute tasks where power draw is a primary concern. Pick the FirePro W4100 for desktop workstations needing multiple displays, memory-bandwidth-heavy workloads, or Vulkan rendering pipelines. The 250 W suggested PSU for the FirePro W4100 should be factored into system planning, while the MX230's 10 W draw imposes essentially no power supply burden.