AMD FirePro W4170M vs AMD Radeon R7 M260X Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X and AMD FirePro W4170M are both mobile GPUs built on the same fundamental GCN 1.0 architecture, but they are tuned for different purposes. The data shows a clear performance gap in favor of the R7 M260X in the single head-to-head benchmark, yet the FirePro W4170M offers a larger memory buffer. This analysis will break down their architectural similarities, benchmark results, and the specific use cases where each mobile part holds an advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X has an average benchmark score of 5161, which is higher than the AMD FirePro W4170M's average score of 5034.

Q: How much faster is the R7 M260X in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The R7 M260X scores 5690 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the FirePro W4170M scores 5034, resulting in a 13% performance advantage for the R7 M260X.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, both the AMD Radeon R7 M260X and the AMD FirePro W4170M feature a 128-bit memory bus and a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s.

Q: What is the key difference in their memory configurations?

A: The R7 M260X comes with 1024 MB of GDDR5 memory, whereas the FirePro W4170M is equipped with 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, giving the FirePro double the capacity.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same chip and process node?

A: Yes, both use the "Opal" chip, are built on GCN 1.0 architecture, and are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M has a higher boost clock of 900 MHz, compared to the AMD Radeon R7 M260X's boost clock of 715 MHz.

Architecture Differences

Despite sharing the same "Opal" chip and GCN 1.0 architecture, the two GPUs are configured differently at the silicon level, leading to distinct performance characteristics. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, each packing 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, which results in a transistor density of 12.3M / mm². The core configurations are identical in terms of execution resources: both have 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation pipelines.

The primary architectural difference lies in clock speeds. The FirePro W4170M operates at a base clock of 825 MHz and boosts to 900 MHz, while the R7 M260X runs at a lower base clock of 620 MHz and boosts to 715 MHz. This clock disparity directly impacts throughput metrics. The FirePro W4170M achieves a pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s, while the R7 M260X manages 5.720 GPixel/s and 17.16 GTexel/s, respectively. Similarly, the FP32 compute performance is higher on the FirePro, which delivers 691.2 GFLOPS compared to the R7 M260X's 549.1 GFLOPS.

Memory subsystems are similar but not identical. Both use GDDR5 memory running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) across a 128-bit bus, yielding the same 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. However, the FirePro W4170M is equipped with 2 GB of memory, double the 1024 MB found on the R7 M260X. Both cards share the same PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M260X is listed as having no power connectors and being "Portable Device Dependent" for outputs, while the FirePro W4170M is explicitly noted as an "MXM Module" slot width, also with no power connectors. Both are end-of-life products, with the R7 M260X released later, on 2015-12-05, versus the FirePro's 2015-04-22 release.

The Verdict

The data presents a nuanced picture for a builder deciding between these two mobile GPUs. If raw compute performance in synthetic workloads is the priority, the AMD Radeon R7 M260X is the clear winner, as it outperforms the FirePro W4170M by 13% in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark and holds a higher average benchmark score of 5161 versus 5034. The R7 M260X also sits at a slightly higher percentile rank relative to its closest rivals, with a 0.1% delta over the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M, whereas the FirePro W4170M's closest rival, the AMD Radeon R5 M430, shows a 0.3% delta.

However, the FirePro W4170M is not without merit. Its advantage lies in its memory capacity, offering 2 GB of GDDR5, which is double the 1024 MB of the R7 M260X. In scenarios where larger textures or datasets are required, this could be a deciding factor. Furthermore, the FirePro W4170M has significantly higher clock speeds (900 MHz boost vs. 715 MHz), leading to superior pixel fill rate, texture fill rate, and FP32 throughput, despite losing in the OpenCL benchmark.

For a user prioritizing benchmark scores and general compute tasks, the R7 M260X is the better choice. For a user who needs more video memory and might benefit from higher theoretical throughput rates, the FirePro W4170M, despite its lower benchmark score, could be the more suitable option. The verdict ultimately depends on whether the workload is more sensitive to raw GPU compute or memory capacity.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two GPUs are summarized below, highlighting where the FirePro W4170M and Radeon R7 M260X diverge.

| Specification | AMD Radeon R7 M260X | AMD FirePro W4170M |

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

| Base Clock | 620 MHz | 825 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 715 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Memory Size | 1024 MB | 2 GB |

| Pixel Rate | 5.720 GPixel/s | 7.200 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 17.16 GTexel/s | 21.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 549.1 GFLOPS | 691.2 GFLOPS |

| Slot Width | Not specified | MXM Module |

| Release Date | 2015-12-05 | 2015-04-22 |

| Generation | Gem System (R7 M200) | FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) |

| Predecessor | Solar System | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Radeon Pro Mobile |

Both GPUs share identical specs for process node (28 nm), transistor count (950 million), die size (77 mm²), memory type (GDDR5), memory bus width (128 bit), memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s), shading units (384), TMUs (24), ROPs (8), and bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are decisive. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690, while the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034. This represents a 13% performance delta in favor of the R7 M260X, making it the winner in the sole head-to-head benchmark, with a total of 1 win for the R7 M260X and 0 for the FirePro W4170M.

This result is interesting because it contradicts the raw clock speed advantages of the FirePro W4170M, which has a higher boost clock (900 MHz vs. 715 MHz), higher pixel rate (7.200 GPixel/s vs. 5.720 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s vs. 17.16 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (691.2 GFLOPS vs. 549.1 GFLOPS). The benchmark data suggests that the R7 M260X's architecture or driver optimizations are more effective at translating resources into actual OpenCL performance, despite the FirePro's theoretical advantages.

Looking at the broader context, the R7 M260X's average benchmark score of 5161 places it in close competition with the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (5154, a 0.1% delta) and slightly ahead of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M (5211, a -1% delta). The FirePro W4170M's average score of 5034 puts it in a similar tier, trading places with the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018, a 0.3% delta) and the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (5063, a -0.6% delta). This shows that while the R7 M260X has the edge in this specific test, both products are positioned in the same performance class among their peers.

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon R7 M260X:

The R7 M260X is the winner in the most direct comparison available. Its 13% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark is the most significant data point, indicating that it is the stronger choice for general-purpose GPU compute tasks that rely on OpenCL. Its higher average benchmark score (5161 vs. 5034) reinforces this position. The R7 M260X also benefits from a later release date (2015-12-05 vs. 2015-04-22), which could imply more mature drivers or optimizations over its lifespan. For any application where the Geekbench OpenCL score is a proxy for real-world performance, the R7 M260X is the better performer.

AMD FirePro W4170M:

Despite losing the benchmark, the FirePro W4170M has specific strengths. Its 2 GB memory capacity is double that of the R7 M260X, making it the better option for workloads that are memory-intensive, such as handling large textures in professional visualization or larger datasets in compute tasks that exceed the 1 GB frame buffer of the R7 M260X. Furthermore, its higher clock speeds and resulting higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 performance indicate that in scenarios not well-represented by the Geekbench OpenCL test, it could outperform the R7 M260X. The FirePro W4170M's "MXM Module" form factor also makes it a distinct option for systems designed around that standard. For a user who knows their application is limited by VRAM capacity rather than raw compute, the FirePro W4170M is the more prudent choice.