AMD FirePro W4170M vs AMD Radeon R7 Graphics Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4170M and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics represent two very different approaches to graphics in a laptop: a dedicated, professional-grade mobile GPU versus an integrated processor graphics solution. The data shows a clear, though not overwhelming, performance edge for the dedicated FirePro, but the R7 Graphics counters with a significant advantage in API compatibility and a lower power profile. This analysis breaks down the benchmark results, specifications, and architecture to determine which GPU fits specific use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4170M is the clear winner in raw compute performance, as demonstrated by its decisive victory in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark. This makes it the superior choice for tasks that leverage general-purpose GPU computing, such as OpenCL-accelerated applications, video encoding, and professional workloads like CAD or content creation. Its dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth provides a significant advantage over the R7 Graphics' system-shared memory, ensuring that data-intensive tasks are not bottlenecked by memory contention with the CPU.

Conversely, the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics wins on modern API support. It boasts DirectX 12 (12_0) support, while the FirePro W4170M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1). This means the R7 Graphics is the better choice for a broader range of modern games and applications that require the full feature set of DirectX 12. It also has a distinct advantage in power consumption, with a 25 W TDP compared to the FirePro's unspecified (but likely higher) TDP. For a thin-and-light or entry-level laptop where battery life and thermals are paramount, the integrated R7 Graphics is the more practical choice.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M has a higher average benchmark score of 5034, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics' score of 4998. The FirePro is 0.7% ahead of the R7 Graphics in this metric.

Q: Are these GPUs powerful enough for modern gaming?

A: Both GPUs are positioned in the low percentile range, with the FirePro at the 30th percentile and the R7 Graphics at the 29th percentile of all GPUs. This indicates they are entry-level parts. The R7 Graphics has an advantage for gaming due to its support for DirectX 12 (12_0), which is more feature-complete than the FirePro's DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: What is the performance difference in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034, which is 25.4% higher than the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics' score of 4015. This makes the FirePro the clear winner in compute performance.

Q: How does the memory configuration affect performance?

A: The FirePro W4170M has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R7 Graphics uses System Shared memory, meaning its bandwidth is "System Dependent". The dedicated memory of the FirePro is a major advantage for performance, as it doesn't compete with the CPU for memory access.

Q: Which GPU has a lower power draw?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics has a TDP of 25 W, while the TDP for the AMD FirePro W4170M is not specified. The R7 Graphics' lower TDP makes it a more power-efficient option for portable devices.

Q: Which GPU is better for a professional workstation?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M is the better choice for a professional workstation. It is part of the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation and has a dedicated memory pool, which is critical for stability and performance in professional applications. Its higher compute performance also benefits tasks like rendering and simulation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisive. The AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034 points, while the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4015 points. This represents a 25.4% advantage for the FirePro. This is a substantial gap that translates to a real-world performance difference in any OpenCL-accelerated workload.

This single benchmark result is the most critical data point in this comparison. It shows that the dedicated FirePro, despite having the same number of shading units (384), TMUs (24), and ROPs (8) as the R7 Graphics, is significantly faster. The advantage comes from its higher clock speeds and dedicated memory. The FirePro's base clock is 825 MHz with a boost of 900 MHz, whereas the R7 Graphics clocks are not specified. When looking at the nearest rivals, the FirePro is 0.7% faster than the R7 Graphics in average score, and the R7 Graphics is 0.6% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB, which highlights the low-performance tier these GPUs occupy.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets for these two GPUs reveal fundamental differences in their design and purpose.

• Memory: The FirePro W4170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R7 Graphics uses System Shared memory, with its bandwidth being System Dependent.
• Clock Speeds: The FirePro W4170M has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz. The Radeon R7 Graphics has no base or boost clock listed.
• Bus Interface: The FirePro W4170M uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the Radeon R7 Graphics is an IGP with no separate interface.
• Power (TDP): The Radeon R7 Graphics has a TDP of 25 W. The TDP for the FirePro W4170M is not specified.
• Slot Width: The FirePro W4170M is an MXM Module, while the Radeon R7 Graphics is an IGP.
• Process Node Foundry: While both use a 28 nm process, the FirePro is fabricated by TSMC, and the R7 Graphics is fabricated by GlobalFoundries.
• DirectX Support: The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R7 Graphics supports the more advanced DirectX 12 (12_0).

Architecture Differences

The architecture of these two GPUs reflects their different target markets. The AMD FirePro W4170M is based on the GCN 1.0 architecture and uses the Opal chip. It is part of the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation, which is designed for professional mobile workstations. The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics is based on the newer GCN 2.0 architecture and uses the Spectre Lite chip. It is part of the GCN 2.0 IGP (Kaveri) generation, indicating it is an integrated processor graphics solution.

Despite the architectural generation gap, both have exactly 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. However, the newer GCN 2.0 architecture of the R7 Graphics allows it to support DirectX 12 (12_0), a feature the older GCN 1.0 FirePro lacks. The physical size also differs drastically. The FirePro's Opal chip is 77 mm² with 950 million transistors, while the R7 Graphics' Spectre Lite chip is 245 mm² with 2,410 million transistors (though this includes the CPU portion of the APU). This results in a higher transistor density of 12.3M / mm² for the FirePro, versus 9.8M / mm² for the R7 Graphics. The FirePro's compute rates are also higher, with a pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s, a texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s, and FP32 performance of 691.2 GFLOPS, versus 5.760 GPixel/s, 17.28 GTexel/s, and 553.0 GFLOPS for the R7 Graphics.

The Verdict

The choice between these two GPUs is straightforward and depends entirely on the intended use case.

Pick the AMD FirePro W4170M if you need maximum compute performance for professional applications. The benchmark data is unequivocal: it is 25.4% faster than the R7 Graphics in Geekbench OpenCL. Its dedicated 2 GB of GDDR5 memory is a critical asset for professional workloads, ensuring consistent performance without relying on system RAM. While its TDP is not specified, its performance lead and dedicated memory make it the superior choice for a mobile workstation where rendering and compute tasks are the priority.

Pick the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics if you are building or buying an entry-level, power-efficient system for general use and light gaming. Its support for DirectX 12 (12_0) is a key advantage, making it more compatible with a wider range of modern games. Its 25 W TDP is significantly better for battery life and thermal management in a portable device. While it loses in raw compute, it is a more practical and feature-complete solution for a mainstream consumer laptop.