AMD FirePro W4170M vs AMD Radeon R7 M465 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly between these two mobile GPUs, with the AMD Radeon R7 M465 taking the only recorded head-to-head victory. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the R7 M465 scores 5841 points, while the AMD FirePro W4170M trails at 5034 points. That is a 16% gap in favor of the R7 M465, a substantial margin for a single compute workload. The FirePro W4170M does not win any of the recorded comparisons in this database, meaning its case rests entirely on other characteristics rather than measured performance.

Looking at the broader competitive landscape, the R7 M465 sits at the 33rd percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Radeon R5 M435 at 5859 points (0.3% ahead), the Intel UHD Graphics 730 at 5929 points (1.5% ahead), and the AMD Radeon HD 8730M at 5955 points (1.9% ahead). On the flip side, it outperforms the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 550 Ti, which scores 5731 points, a 1.9% advantage. These are tight margins, indicating the R7 M465 occupies a crowded performance band where small clock or memory differences separate competitors.

The FirePro W4170M, by contrast, sits at the 30th percentile, three points lower than its rival. Its nearest rivals are clustered even more tightly: the AMD Radeon R5 M430 scores 5018 points (0.3% behind), the AMD Radeon R7 M340 and AMD Radeon R7 240 both score 5063 points (0.6% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics scores 4998 points (0.7% behind). Essentially, the W4170M is bracketed by a series of low-end and integrated solutions, and its 5034-point result does not separate itself from that pack.

For use-case planning, the R7 M465 is the clear choice for OpenCL compute workloads, which often appear in productivity applications, video encoding, and physics simulations. The FirePro W4170M, despite its professional branding, does not deliver a compute advantage in the recorded data. Its wins would have to come from areas not captured by this benchmark, such as driver certification or display features, but the database does not contain measurements to support such claims.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the AMD Radeon R7 M465 is the stronger performer of the two. Its 5841-point OpenCL score beats the FirePro W4170M by 16%, and its 33rd percentile ranking places it above its rival's 30th percentile. Anyone choosing between these two for compute-heavy tasks should select the R7 M465 without hesitation.

The FirePro W4170M does have one structural advantage: its 128-bit memory bus provides 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the R7 M465's 64-bit bus and 36.00 GB/s. That is a meaningful difference for memory-bound workloads, but the recorded benchmark does not reflect any benefit from it. The W4170M still loses the OpenCL test by a wide margin. The database shows no scenario where the W4170M wins, so its higher bandwidth remains an unproven theoretical asset.

For users who need maximum OpenCL throughput, the R7 M465 is the safer bet. It also has a higher boost clock (1024 MHz vs 900 MHz) and a newer architecture (GCN 3.0 vs GCN 1.0), both of which likely contribute to its measured advantage. The FirePro W4170M might appeal to those who prioritize the professional product line's reputation, but the recorded data offers no performance justification for that choice.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5841 points, and the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034 points. The delta is 16%, with the R7 M465 declared the winner. That 807-point gap is substantial in a segment where rival cards often sit within 1-2% of each other.

To put that in context, the R7 M465's nearest rival, the Radeon R5 M435, is only 0.3% ahead of it, and the Intel UHD Graphics 730 is just 1.5% ahead. The FirePro W4170M's nearest rival, the R5 M430, is 0.3% behind it. So the 16% difference between the two compared GPUs is roughly ten times larger than the typical spread among their closest competitors. This is not a marginal victory; it is a decisive one.

Architectural factors help explain the gap. The R7 M465 runs at a 1024 MHz boost clock, while the W4170M boosts to only 900 MHz. Both have 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs, so the raw execution resources are identical. The difference comes down to clock speed and architecture generation. The R7 M465's GCN 3.0 design, built on the Topaz chip, delivers higher pixel rate (8.192 GPixel/s vs 7.200 GPixel/s) and higher texture rate (24.58 GTexel/s vs 21.60 GTexel/s). Its FP32 throughput reaches 786.4 GFLOPS, compared to 691.2 GFLOPS for the W4170M. Every compute metric favors the R7 M465.

The W4170M does counter with double the memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s vs 36.00 GB/s), but that advantage does not translate into a benchmark win. The Geekbench OpenCL test appears to favor raw compute throughput over memory bandwidth, so the R7 M465's higher clocks and newer architecture carry the day.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M465 scores 5841 points in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034 points. The R7 M465 wins by 16%.

Q: How does the R7 M465 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The R7 M465 is 0.3% behind the Radeon R5 M435 (5859 points), 1.5% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929 points), and 1.9% behind the Radeon HD 8730M (5955 points). It is 1.9% ahead of the GeForce GTX 550 Ti (5731 points).

Q: Does the FirePro W4170M have any advantage in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the W4170M has a 128-bit memory bus delivering 64.00 GB/s, while the R7 M465 uses a 64-bit bus for 36.00 GB/s. However, this advantage does not produce a win in the recorded OpenCL benchmark.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two GPUs?

A: The R7 M465 has a base clock of 730 MHz and a boost clock of 1024 MHz. The W4170M has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz. The R7 M465 boosts higher, while the W4170M has a higher base clock.

Q: Which GPU uses a newer architecture?

A: The R7 M465 uses GCN 3.0, while the W4170M uses GCN 1.0. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the R7 M465's newer architecture contributes to its higher measured performance.

Q: How do their compute capabilities compare?

A: The R7 M465 delivers 786.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and 786.4 GFLOPS of FP16 performance (1:1 ratio). The W4170M delivers 691.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance and does not list FP16 support in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations. The AMD Radeon R7 M465 uses GCN 3.0, built on the Topaz chip, while the AMD FirePro W4170M uses GCN 1.0, built on the Opal chip. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the transistor counts differ significantly. The Topaz chip packs 1,550 million transistors into a 125 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.4M per mm². The Opal chip contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3M per mm². The R7 M465's larger die and 600 million additional transistors give it more headroom for higher clocks and newer feature support.

The R7 M465 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), while the W4170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M465 also lists FP16 compute at a 1:1 ratio with FP32, while the W4170M does not list FP16 support at all. This matters for workloads that use half-precision arithmetic, which is common in machine learning inference and some graphics effects.

The R7 M465 belongs to the Gem System (R7 M400) generation, with the Solar System as its predecessor and Polaris Mobile as its successor. The W4170M belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation, with FirePro Mobility as its predecessor and Radeon Pro Mobile as its successor. Both are end-of-life products, but their lineage reflects different design goals: the R7 series targets mainstream mobile graphics, while the FirePro line targets professional mobile workstations.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share several core specifications. Both have 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. Both are 28 nm parts from TSMC. The differences emerge in clocks, memory, and form factor.

The R7 M465 runs at a 730 MHz base clock and boosts to 1024 MHz. The W4170M runs at a higher 825 MHz base clock but only boosts to 900 MHz. This means the R7 M465 has a 124 MHz higher boost ceiling, which directly contributes to its higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. The W4170M's higher base clock may help sustained workloads, but the recorded benchmark does not capture that benefit.

Memory configurations diverge sharply. The R7 M465 uses a 64-bit memory bus with 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth, and its memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective). The W4170M uses a 128-bit memory bus with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, and its memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The W4170M's memory subsystem is objectively wider and faster in terms of aggregate bandwidth, but this does not translate into a compute win.

The R7 M465 has a lower transistor count per unit area (12.4M vs 12.3M per mm²), but a much larger die overall (125 mm² vs 77 mm²). The W4170M is specified as an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the R7 M465 does not list a slot width or power connector configuration. The W4170M's display outputs are described as "Portable Device Dependent," while the R7 M465 does not list display outputs. The W4170M was released earlier (2015-04-22) than the R7 M465 (2016-05-14), and the R7 M465 sits four percentile points higher in the overall database ranking.