AMD FirePro W4170M vs AMD FirePro W4190M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole recorded benchmark between these two mobile workstation GPUs is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results show a clear, though not overwhelming, advantage for the AMD FirePro W4170M. The W4170M scores 5034 points, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505 points. This yields a delta of 11.7 percent in favor of the W4170M, making it the outright winner in the only head-to-head comparison available in the database.

Placing these scores in context against their respective nearest rivals clarifies the competitive positioning. The W4170M sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, which is modest but respectable for a mobile workstation part. Its closest competitor, the AMD Radeon R5 M430, scores 5018 points, meaning the W4170M leads by a slim 0.3 percent. The other three rivals in its immediate vicinity are all within a single percentage point: the AMD Radeon R7 M340 and the AMD Radeon R7 240 both score 5063 points, placing them 0.6 percent ahead of the W4170M, while the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4998 points, which is 0.7 percent behind. This clustering indicates that the W4170M performs essentially at parity with a tight group of entry-level and integrated graphics solutions, with no single rival in the data holding a decisive edge.

The W4190M, by contrast, lands at the 26th percentile, four points lower than its sibling. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 M260, scores 4499 points, giving the W4190M a razor-thin 0.1 percent advantage. The other three rivals in this grouping are all slightly ahead: the Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4560 points (1.2 percent ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 4569 points (1.4 percent ahead), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577 points (1.6 percent ahead). The pattern here is telling: the W4190M does not lead any of its nearest rivals by a meaningful margin, and it trails three of the four by more than a full percentage point.

The 11.7 percent gap between the two FirePro parts is therefore the dominant signal in this comparison. It is larger than any of the deltas observed within either GPU's nearest-rival cluster, which suggests that the performance difference between the W4170M and W4190M is more substantial than the differences separating either from its closest market neighbors. In practical terms, the W4170M delivers a Geekbench OpenCL score that is roughly one-eighth higher than the W4190M, a margin that would be noticeable in compute workloads that scale with raw throughput.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034 points, which is 11.7 percent higher than the AMD FirePro W4190M's score of 4505 points.

Q: How does the W4170M compare to its closest rival, the AMD Radeon R5 M430?

A: The W4170M scores 5034 points versus 5018 points for the Radeon R5 M430, a lead of 0.3 percent.

Q: What is the W4190M's standing relative to the AMD Radeon R7 M260?

A: The W4190M scores 4505 points versus 4499 points for the Radeon R7 M260, an advantage of 0.1 percent.

Q: Which GPU holds a higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The W4170M sits at the 30th percentile, while the W4190M is at the 26th percentile.

Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the W4190M wins?

A: No. In the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, the W4170M wins with a delta of 11.7 percent. The wins tally is 1 for the W4170M and 0 for the W4190M.

Q: How does the W4190M perform against the Intel HD Graphics P530?

A: The W4190M trails the Intel HD Graphics P530 by 1.2 percent, with scores of 4505 and 4560 points respectively.

Architecture Differences

Despite the performance gap observed in the benchmark data, the architectural specifications of these two GPUs are identical across every recorded field. Both the AMD FirePro W4170M and the AMD FirePro W4190M are built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the same Opal chip. The process node is 28 nm at TSMC, with a transistor count of 950 million and a die size of 77 mm². The transistor density works out to 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter for both parts.

The compute configuration is equally matched. Each GPU features 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The pixel rate is 7.200 GPixel/s and the texture rate is 21.60 GTexel/s for both, while FP32 performance is rated at 691.2 GFLOPS. Neither part has recorded FP16 performance, ray tracing cores, or tensor cores in the database.

Memory specifications are also identical. Both GPUs come with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, yielding a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. The memory clock is 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective data rate. The base clock is 825 MHz and the boost clock is 900 MHz for both, with no game clock recorded.

The platform integration details match as well. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors, both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, and both have display outputs described as portable device dependent. The API support is the same: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The production status is end-of-life for both, and both share the same predecessor, FirePro Mobility, and the same successor, Radeon Pro Mobile.

The only meaningful differences in the database are temporal and performance-based. The W4170M was released on April 22, 2015, while the W4190M arrived later on November 11, 2015, a gap of roughly seven months. The release timing does not translate into any hardware advantage for the newer part, as the benchmark data shows the older W4170M outperforming the W4190M by 11.7 percent. This is a notable outcome: a later release with identical specifications and a lower benchmark score suggests that the W4190M may have been subject to different binning, power management, or driver behavior, though the database does not contain data to confirm any specific cause.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs is straightforward when limited to the recorded data. The AMD FirePro W4170M is the faster part by a decisive margin, scoring 5034 points in Geekbench OpenCL against 4505 points for the W4190M. That 11.7 percent delta is the single largest performance differential in the entire comparison, and it is the only head-to-head metric available. Any workload that is sensitive to OpenCL compute performance would favor the W4170M.

The W4190M does not offer a compensating advantage anywhere in the database. It has the same architecture, the same memory configuration, the same clock speeds, and the same feature set. Its release date is later, but later does not mean better in this case. The W4190M sits at the 26th percentile among all GPUs, while the W4170M sits at the 30th, and the W4190M trails three of its four nearest rivals while leading only one by a negligible 0.1 percent.

For a buyer or system integrator choosing between these two mobile workstation parts, the W4170M is the clear pick on performance. The W4190M would only be chosen if availability or platform compatibility dictated otherwise, as there is no benchmark-based reason to prefer it. The data does not show a single metric, aside from the later release date, where the W4190M is superior.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in only a small set of recorded fields. The AMD FirePro W4170M has a release date of April 22, 2015, whereas the AMD FirePro W4190M has a release date of November 11, 2015. This is the only chronological distinction between them.

In benchmark results, the W4170M achieves a Geekbench OpenCL score of 5034 points, while the W4190M achieves 4505 points. The average benchmark score mirrors this: 5034 for the W4170M and 4505 for the W4190M. The percentile ranking among all GPUs is 30 for the W4170M and 26 for the W4190M.

The nearest rival groups also differ. The W4170M is compared against the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018 points, 0.3 percent delta), the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063 points, -0.6 percent), the AMD Radeon R7 240 (5063 points, -0.6 percent), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998 points, 0.7 percent). The W4190M is compared against the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499 points, 0.1 percent), the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560 points, -1.2 percent), the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569 points, -1.4 percent), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577 points, -1.6 percent).

All other specification fields are identical between the two parts, including chip, architecture, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, transistor density, base and boost clocks, memory clock, memory size, type, bus width, bandwidth, shading units, TMUs, ROPs, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 performance, slot width, power connectors, bus interface, display outputs, API support, production status, predecessor, and successor. Neither part has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.