AMD FirePro W4170M vs NVIDIA GeForce 840M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head data point places the NVIDIA GeForce 840M decisively ahead of the AMD FirePro W4170M. In Geekbench OpenCL, the 840M scores 5764 against the FirePro’s 5034, a 14.5% advantage. That is not a marginal gap; it represents a clear generational and architectural efficiency edge for the Maxwell-based part. The FirePro W4170M never wins a head-to-head test in this dataset, with a 1–0 win tally favoring NVIDIA.

Look at the broader context. The 840M’s average benchmark score is 5322, placing it in the 31st percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro W4170M averages 5034, sitting at the 30th percentile. While both parts are near the bottom of the overall performance distribution, the 840M’s raw OpenCL lead is consistent with its higher clock speeds and superior FP32 throughput. The 840M delivers 863.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute, while the FirePro manages 691.2 GFLOPS — a 24.9% compute advantage that largely explains the 14.5% benchmark delta. Interestingly, the 840M’s nearest rivals include the GeForce 930A (avg score 5317, delta 0.1%), the GeForce GTX 980M (avg score 5308, delta 0.3%), and the GeForce 940M (avg score 5284, delta 0.7%). The FirePro’s nearest rivals are all AMD parts: the Radeon R5 M430 (5018, delta 0.3%), the Radeon R7 M340 (5063, delta -0.6%), and the Radeon R7 240 (5063, delta -0.6%). What stands out is that the 840M’s deltaPct values against its rivals are all within 0.7%, suggesting a tight cluster of mid-tier mobile GPUs, whereas the FirePro sits in a similarly tight but lower-performing AMD cluster.

The 840M also holds a Vulkan score of 4880, which the FirePro lacks entirely in this dataset. That absence is notable — it suggests the FirePro either was not tested under Vulkan or lacks the driver support to produce a comparable result. For any workload leveraging Vulkan, the 840M has a measurable, if unquantified, edge.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 840M scores 5764 versus the AMD FirePro W4170M’s 5034, a 14.5% advantage for NVIDIA.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 840M averages 5322 across all benchmarks, while the FirePro W4170M averages 5034. The 840M also lands at the 31st percentile of all GPUs versus the FirePro’s 30th.

Q: Does the FirePro W4170M have any benchmark win over the 840M?

A: No. The head-to-head record is 1 win for the 840M and 0 for the FirePro W4170M in the available data.

Q: What memory technology does each GPU use?

A: The 840M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.02 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W4170M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s — four times the bandwidth.

Q: Are both GPUs based on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both use TSMC’s 28 nm process node. The 840M packs 1,020 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the FirePro has 950 million transistors on the same 77 mm² die area.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The 840M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W4170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The GeForce 840M is built on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, using the GM108S chip. Maxwell was designed for efficiency per clock, and the 840M’s base clock of 1029 MHz with a boost of 1124 MHz reflects that focus. The chip contains 384 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The FirePro W4170M, in contrast, uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture on the Opal chip. GCN is a fundamentally different design philosophy — it emphasizes throughput across many small compute units. The FirePro also has 384 shading units but pairs them with 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. The extra TMUs give the FirePro a higher texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s versus the 840M’s 17.98 GTexel/s, a 20.1% advantage in texture fill. Yet the 840M’s higher clocks flip the pixel rate comparison: 8.992 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s, a 24.9% advantage for NVIDIA.

The transistor counts tell the story of design density. Both dies are 77 mm², but the 840M crams 1,020 million transistors into that area, yielding a density of 13.2M / mm². The FirePro has 950 million transistors, a density of 12.3M / mm². That extra density on the 840M is likely why it achieves higher clock speeds and FP32 output — 863.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS — despite the FirePro’s wider memory bus. The FirePro’s GCN architecture also features a different DirectX capability: 12 (11_1) versus the 840M’s 12 (11_0). In practice, that means the FirePro can expose slightly newer DirectX 11-level features, though both are limited to feature level 11_0/11_1 rather than full DirectX 12. The 840M counters with Vulkan 1.4 support versus the FirePro’s Vulkan 1.2.170 — a newer API version that could matter for modern Linux or Vulkan-based workloads.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals several clear divergences:

• Chip: GM108S (NVIDIA) versus Opal (AMD)
• Architecture: Maxwell versus GCN 1.0
• Transistors: 1,020 million versus 950 million
• Transistor density: 13.2M / mm² versus 12.3M / mm²
• Base clock: 1029 MHz versus 825 MHz
• Boost clock: 1124 MHz versus 900 MHz
• Memory clock: 1001 MHz (2 Gbps effective) versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective)
• Memory type: DDR3 versus GDDR5
• Memory bus width: 64 bit versus 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 16.02 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s
• TMUs: 16 versus 24
• Pixel rate: 8.992 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 17.98 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 863.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS
• TDP: 33 W versus not specified
• Slot width: IGP versus MXM Module
• DirectX support: 12 (11_0) versus 12 (11_1)
• Vulkan support: 1.4 versus 1.2.170
• Release date: 2014-03-11 versus 2015-04-22
• Generation: GeForce 800M versus FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)

The memory subsystem is the most dramatic difference. The FirePro’s 128-bit GDDR5 setup delivers exactly four times the bandwidth of the 840M’s 64-bit DDR3 — 64.00 GB/s versus 16.02 GB/s. Yet the 840M still wins the compute benchmark. That suggests the 840M’s higher clocks and architecture efficiency compensate for the bandwidth deficit in OpenCL workloads that are compute-bound rather than memory-bound. The 840M’s 33 W TDP, while not compared against a number for the FirePro, indicates a low-power mobile design, consistent with its IGP (integrated graphics processor) slot width. The FirePro’s MXM module form factor, by contrast, suggests it was designed for replaceable mobile workstation graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 840M wins the only direct benchmark comparison, and it wins on raw compute metrics. Higher clocks, higher FP32 output, and better Vulkan support make it the stronger choice for OpenCL or Vulkan compute tasks. Its 14.5% lead in Geekbench OpenCL is the headline result. The 840M also benefits from a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170), which could enable more modern rendering features in Vulkan-based applications. Its pixel rate advantage of 8.992 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s suggests it will also handle pixel-heavy workloads slightly better.

The AMD FirePro W4170M, despite losing the compute benchmark, wins on memory bandwidth by a factor of four. For workloads that are bandwidth-limited — texture streaming, large framebuffer operations, or data-heavy compute — the 64.00 GB/s GDDR5 connection could provide an advantage that the OpenCL score does not capture. The FirePro also has a 20.1% higher texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s versus 17.98 GTexel/s), meaning it can sample and filter textures faster. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) support is marginally newer than the 840M’s 11_0, though both are effectively DirectX 11-class parts. The FirePro’s MXM form factor also makes it a candidate for workstation laptops with replaceable graphics modules, whereas the 840M is soldered as an IGP.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for general compute workloads: the NVIDIA GeForce 840M. It leads the only head-to-head benchmark by 14.5%, has a higher average benchmark score (5322 versus 5034), and delivers more FP32 compute (863.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS). Its Vulkan 1.4 support is newer, and its pixel rate is higher. For users running OpenCL or Vulkan applications, the 840M is the better bet.

The AMD FirePro W4170M is not without merit. Its 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is a massive advantage over the 840M’s 16.02 GB/s, and its higher texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s) makes it better suited for texture-intensive workloads. The FirePro’s DirectX 12 (11_1) support is also a notch above the 840M’s 11_0. But in the only direct performance comparison available, the FirePro comes up short. The 840M’s efficiency — higher clocks, more transistors per mm², and lower TDP (33 W) — appears to overcome the FirePro’s memory bandwidth advantage in compute tasks.

For a mobile workstation user who prioritizes OpenCL compute, the 840M is the data-backed choice. For a user who needs maximum memory bandwidth or texture throughput, the FirePro W4170M offers specific strengths — but those strengths do not translate into a benchmark win in this dataset. The 840M takes the verdict on raw performance; the FirePro remains a niche pick for bandwidth-sensitive scenarios.