AMD FirePro W4170M vs NVIDIA GeForce 930A Comparison

The GeForce 930A and the FirePro W4170M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the 28 nm era, but they are built for different priorities. The benchmark data shows a clear, albeit narrow, performance leader in the GeForce 930A, which scores 5317 in Geekbench OpenCL against the FirePro W4170M’s 5034. That 5.6% delta is the single head-to-head result available, yet the underlying specifications reveal why these two parts appeal to different buyers.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 930A wins the only direct benchmark comparison in the data. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, it posts 5317 points against the FirePro W4170M’s 5034, a 5.6% advantage. This makes the NVIDIA part the straightforward choice for compute workloads that rely on OpenCL performance, as its higher FP32 throughput of 722.7 GFLOPS (versus 691.2 GFLOPS) and faster pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s (versus 7.200 GPixel/s) back up that result. The data shows the 930A also has a slight edge in texture rate, 22.58 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s, reinforcing its lead in raw shading throughput.

The FirePro W4170M does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head data, but it wins on memory architecture. Its GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus provides 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, which is exactly four times the 16.02 GB/s of the GeForce 930A’s DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus. For workloads that are bandwidth-bound—such as large data transfers, certain compute kernels, or higher-resolution texture streaming—this memory subsystem advantage could offset the NVIDIA part’s raw compute lead. The FirePro also carries a higher DirectX feature level, 12 (11_1) versus the 930A’s 12 (11_0), and a newer Vulkan version, 1.2.170 versus 1.4, though the NVIDIA part’s Vulkan 1.4 is actually the more recent specification.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families. The GeForce 930A uses the GM108 chip based on NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture, fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process. It packs 1,020 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 13.2M per mm². The FirePro W4170M uses the Opal chip based on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, also fabricated by TSMC on 28 nm, but with 950 million transistors on the same 77 mm² die, giving a slightly lower density of 12.3M per mm².

Both GPUs have identical core counts: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The clock speeds differ, with the GeForce 930A running at a 928 MHz base and 941 MHz boost, while the FirePro W4170M runs at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. This 103 MHz base clock advantage for NVIDIA contributes directly to its higher fill rates and FP32 performance. The memory subsystems are entirely different, as noted: the 930A uses 2 GB of DDR3 at 2 Gbps effective on a 64-bit bus, while the W4170M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 at 4 Gbps effective on a 128-bit bus. Both are mobile parts, but the 930A is an IGP (integrated GPU) with no slot width, while the W4170M is an MXM module. Neither requires external power connectors.

The API support shows generational differences. The GeForce 930A supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W4170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The 930A’s Vulkan 1.4 is a newer specification than the W4170M’s 1.2.170, which could matter for modern compute applications. The 930A also has a higher transistor count and density, suggesting a more complex design despite the same die size.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The GeForce 930A. It delivers 722.7 GFLOPS FP32 against the FirePro W4170M’s 691.2 GFLOPS, and it wins the Geekbench OpenCL head-to-head by 5.6%.

Q: Does the FirePro W4170M have any advantage over the GeForce 930A?

A: Yes, in memory bandwidth. The W4170M offers 64.00 GB/s from GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, versus the 930A’s 16.02 GB/s from DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. This fourfold bandwidth difference could benefit memory-intensive workloads.

Q: Are the two GPUs built on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both use TSMC’s 28 nm process. However, the GeForce 930A has 1,020 million transistors versus the FirePro W4170M’s 950 million, resulting in a higher transistor density of 13.2M per mm² versus 12.3M per mm².

Q: What are the core configurations of each GPU?

A: They are identical. Both have 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The difference lies in clock speeds, with the 930A boosting to 941 MHz and the W4170M boosting to 900 MHz.

Q: Which GPU supports newer graphics APIs?

A: The GeForce 930A supports Vulkan 1.4, which is newer than the FirePro W4170M’s Vulkan 1.2.170. The W4170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), a higher feature level than the 930A’s DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6.

Q: What is the physical form factor difference?

A: The GeForce 930A is an IGP with no slot width, while the FirePro W4170M is an MXM module. Neither requires external power connectors.

Specification Differences

| Specification | NVIDIA GeForce 930A | AMD FirePro W4170M |

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

| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |

| Chip | GM108 | Opal |

| Transistors | 1,020 million | 950 million |

| Transistor Density | 13.2M / mm² | 12.3M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 928 MHz | 825 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 941 MHz | 900 MHz |

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bus Width | 64 bit | 128 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 16.02 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Memory Clock | 2 Gbps effective | 4 Gbps effective |

| Pixel Rate | 7.528 GPixel/s | 7.200 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 22.58 GTexel/s | 21.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 722.7 GFLOPS | 691.2 GFLOPS |

| TDP | 33 W | Not specified |

| Slot Width | IGP | MXM Module |

| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |

| Vulkan | 1.4 | 1.2.170 |

| Release Date | 2015-03-12 | 2015-04-22 |

| Predecessor | GeForce 800A | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | None | Radeon Pro Mobile |

The two GPUs share the same die size (77 mm²), shading units (384), TMUs (24), ROPs (8), memory size (2 GB), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), process node (28 nm), and foundry (TSMC). They also both have no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it goes to the GeForce 930A. The NVIDIA part scores 5317, which is 5.6% higher than the FirePro W4170M’s 5034. This result aligns with the theoretical compute figures: the 930A’s 722.7 GFLOPS FP32 is 4.6% higher than the W4170M’s 691.2 GFLOPS, and the 930A’s pixel rate of 7.528 GPixel/s is 4.6% higher than the 7.200 GPixel/s of the AMD part. The texture rate difference is similar, with the 930A at 22.58 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s.

Context from the nearest rivals reinforces this narrow margin. The GeForce 930A sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs, with its closest rival being the GeForce 840M (avg score 5322, delta -0.1%) and the GTX 980M (avg score 5308, delta 0.2%). The FirePro W4170M sits at the 30th percentile, with its closest rival being the Radeon R7 M340 (avg score 5063, delta -0.6%). The 5.6% gap between the two parts in this comparison is larger than the gap between the 930A and its nearest rivals, which are all within 0.8% of its score. This suggests that while the 930A is statistically similar to its immediate competitors, the W4170M is more clearly positioned below it in OpenCL performance.

The memory bandwidth disparity does not show up in the Geekbench OpenCL score, likely because that workload is more compute-bound than memory-bound. The W4170M’s 64.00 GB/s bandwidth would be a substantial advantage in scenarios that stream large datasets, but the available benchmark does not capture that. The 930A’s higher clocks and transistor count give it the edge in the measured test.

The Verdict

The data points to the GeForce 930A for users who prioritize raw OpenCL compute performance. It wins the sole head-to-head benchmark by 5.6%, has higher FP32 throughput, faster pixel and texture rates, and a higher transistor count on the same die size. Its 33 W TDP is specified, making it a known quantity for power-constrained mobile designs, and its Vulkan 1.4 support is more modern than the FirePro’s 1.2.170.

The FirePro W4170M makes sense for workloads that are heavily dependent on memory bandwidth. Its 64.00 GB/s GDDR5 implementation is four times the bandwidth of the 930A’s DDR3, which could be decisive for large texture sets, frame buffers, or data-parallel tasks that saturate memory. It also supports a higher DirectX feature level (11_1 versus 11_0), which may enable certain rendering features. However, the benchmark data does not show a scenario where this advantage translates into a win; the W4170M loses the only measured test.

For a general-purpose mobile GPU, the GeForce 930A is the better performer in the measured metric. For a specialized bandwidth-hungry application, the FirePro W4170M’s memory subsystem is the compelling feature, though its lower compute scores mean it will trail in compute-bound tasks. The 930A’s 31st percentile versus the W4170M’s 30th percentile reinforces the marginal overall positioning, but the head-to-head delta is decisive within this comparison.