AMD FirePro W4170M vs AMD Radeon R7 M365X Comparison

The AMD Radeon R7 M365X and AMD FirePro W4170M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on the same fundamental GCN 1.0 architecture, yet the benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy between them. In the single available head-to-head benchmark, the R7 M365X decisively outperforms the FirePro W4170M, posting an 18% higher OpenCL score. This advantage is consistent with the internal specifications, where the R7 M365X operates at higher clock speeds despite sharing the same core configuration. The following analysis breaks down the quantitative results, addresses common questions, and provides a data-driven verdict for system integrators and users navigating the used mobile GPU market.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, which measures general-purpose compute performance across a wide range of workloads. Here, the AMD Radeon R7 M365X scores 5939 points, while the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034 points. This represents an 18% advantage for the R7 M365X, a substantial margin that places the two parts in different performance tiers despite their architectural similarity.

This 18% lead is not a minor statistical fluctuation; it is a decisive gap that will translate into noticeably faster results in compute-heavy applications like video encoding, scientific simulations, and GPU-accelerated rendering. The R7 M365X's victory is entirely attributable to its superior clock speeds. While both GPUs feature 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units, the R7 M365X's memory is clocked at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed, whereas the FirePro W4170M has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz. This higher operating frequency allows the R7 M365X to achieve a pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 19.80 GTexel/s, compared to the FirePro W4170M's 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s.

Interestingly, the FirePro W4170M actually has a higher theoretical fillrate on paper—its pixel rate is 9% faster and its texture rate is 9% faster than the R7 M365X. This is because the FirePro's boost clock of 900 MHz, when sustained, allows for faster pixel and texture processing. However, the OpenCL benchmark results tell a different story, favoring the R7 M365X. This discrepancy suggests that the FirePro W4170M's boost clock may not be sustained under sustained compute loads, or that the R7 M365X benefits from a more efficient memory subsystem in real-world OpenCL workloads. The FP32 performance figures reinforce this: the R7 M365X delivers 633.6 GFLOPS, while the FirePro W4170M is rated at 691.2 GFLOPS. Yet the benchmark score is what matters, and the R7 M365X wins the only test that counts.

Looking at the broader context, the R7 M365X's average benchmark score of 5416 places it in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4170M's average score of 5034 places it in the 30th percentile. This two-percentile difference may seem small, but the delta between the two parts in the head-to-head test is a robust 18%, indicating that the percentile rankings are compressed at this performance level. The R7 M365X's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon 610M (average score 5444, delta of -0.5%), the Intel UHD Graphics P630 (average score 5370, delta of 0.9%), and the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (average score 5467, delta of -0.9%). The FirePro W4170M's nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (average score 5018, delta of 0.3%) and the AMD Radeon R7 M340 (average score 5063, delta of -0.6%). These rivalries confirm that the R7 M365X competes in a slightly higher performance bracket, while the FirePro W4170M sits just below it.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL workloads?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M365X is markedly faster, scoring 5939 points in the Geekbench OpenCL test compared to the AMD FirePro W4170M's 5034 points. This is an 18% advantage for the R7 M365X, making it the clear winner in compute tasks.

Q: Do both GPUs have the same core configuration?

A: Yes, both the R7 M365X and the FirePro W4170M feature 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. They share the same GCN 1.0 architecture, the same 28 nm process node, and the same 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die.

Q: How do the memory subsystems compare?

A: Both GPUs use GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus width and a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s. However, the R7 M365X has 1024 MB of memory, while the FirePro W4170M has 2 GB. The R7 M365X's memory is clocked at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the FirePro W4170M's memory is also 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), so the bandwidth is identical.

Q: Why does the FirePro W4170M have a higher theoretical fillrate but a lower benchmark score?

A: The FirePro W4170M has a boost clock of 900 MHz, which gives it a theoretical pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s, both higher than the R7 M365X's 6.600 GPixel/s and 19.80 GTexel/s. However, the actual OpenCL benchmark shows the R7 M365X winning by 18%, indicating that the FirePro's boost clock is not sustained in real workloads or that other factors like driver optimization favor the R7 M365X.

Q: Which GPU has a better position relative to its competitors?

A: The R7 M365X sits at the 32nd percentile of all GPUs with an average score of 5416, and its closest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 with an average score of 5467. The FirePro W4170M sits at the 30th percentile with an average score of 5034, and its closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M340 with an average score of 5063. The R7 M365X is competitive with a higher tier of GPUs.

Q: What are the API capabilities of these GPUs?

A: Both GPUs support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. They are functionally identical in terms of software API support, meaning the performance difference is purely hardware-driven.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the AMD Radeon R7 M365X for any user prioritizing raw compute performance. With an 18% lead in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark, the R7 M365X is the superior choice for tasks that leverage GPU acceleration, such as video transcoding, image processing, or general-purpose compute. Its higher average benchmark score of 5416 versus 5034 confirms that this is not a single-test anomaly but a consistent performance gap. The R7 M365X also holds a higher percentile ranking (32nd vs 30th), placing it in a slightly more competitive performance class.

For users who require more memory, the AMD FirePro W4170M offers 2 GB of GDDR5 compared to the R7 M365X's 1 GB. This double capacity could be a deciding factor for workloads that exceed 1 GB of VRAM, such as larger textures in professional 3D applications or certain data sets in compute. However, the performance penalty is steep: the FirePro W4170M is 18% slower in the only benchmark available. Given that both cards are end-of-life products, the R7 M365X is the better buy for performance-sensitive users, while the FirePro W4170M's only advantage is its larger frame buffer. The FirePro's professional branding does not translate into higher compute scores in this data, as it loses decisively to its consumer-oriented sibling. Ultimately, the choice hinges on whether the 2 GB memory capacity is worth sacrificing 18% compute performance; for most users, the R7 M365X is the data-backed winner.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specifications, despite sharing the same core architecture and process node. The most significant difference is memory capacity: the AMD Radeon R7 M365X comes with 1024 MB of GDDR5, while the AMD FirePro W4170M is equipped with 2 GB of GDDR5. Both use a 128-bit memory bus and achieve the same 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, so the only memory advantage for the FirePro is capacity.

Clock speeds also differ. The R7 M365X's memory clock is listed as 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), but its base and boost clocks are not provided in the data. The FirePro W4170M has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz, with the same 1000 MHz memory clock. This clock speed discrepancy directly impacts the theoretical performance figures: the R7 M365X achieves a pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 19.80 GTexel/s, while the FirePro W4170M achieves 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s, respectively. The FP32 compute throughput also reflects this, with the R7 M365X at 633.6 GFLOPS and the FirePro W4170M at 691.2 GFLOPS.

Physical and interface differences are minimal. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, and both are manufactured by AMD on TSMC's 28 nm process. The FirePro W4170M is specified as an MXM Module with no power connectors, and its display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent." The R7 M365X does not have these fields populated in the data. The release dates differ slightly, with the R7 M365X launching on 2015-05-04 and the FirePro W4170M on 2015-04-22. Their production statuses are both "End-of-life."

Architecture Differences

Despite being branded for different market segments—the Radeon R7 M365X for consumer laptops and the FirePro W4170M for professional mobile workstations—the two GPUs are architecturally identical at their core. Both are built on the Graphics Core Next (GCN) 1.0 architecture, which is AMD's first-generation GCN design. They share the same 28 nm process node at TSMC, the same 950 million transistors, and the same 77 mm² die size, resulting in an identical transistor density of 12.3M per mm².

The core configuration is exactly the same: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. Neither GPU features dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, which is expected given their 2015 vintage and GCN 1.0 architecture. The compute capabilities are also aligned in terms of API support, with both offering DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. However, the FirePro W4170M is distinguished by its professional positioning, indicated by its "FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)" generation and its predecessor being "FirePro Mobility" and successor being "Radeon Pro Mobile." The R7 M365X, on the other hand, belongs to the "Gem System (R7 M300)" generation, with its predecessor listed as "Solar System" and successor as "Polaris Mobile."

The chip codenames differ—the R7 M365X uses the "Litho" chip, while the FirePro W4170M uses the "Opal" chip—but this does not translate into any functional difference in the benchmark data. The architectural similarity is so complete that the only meaningful differences are the clock speeds and memory capacity, which are configuration choices rather than fundamental design changes. The FirePro's professional branding typically implies enhanced driver validation for CAD and DCC applications, but the benchmark data does not include any professional application tests, so this cannot be verified. In purely compute terms, the architecture is the same, and the performance difference comes down to how each card is clocked and configured.