AMD FirePro W4170M vs NVIDIA GeForce 940M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 940M and AMD FirePro W4170M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions aimed at different priorities, and the benchmark data makes the choice straightforward. The GeForce 940M is the clear performance winner in the one test that directly compares them, while the FirePro W4170M counters with a significantly faster memory subsystem and a newer DirectX feature level. For raw compute and gaming-oriented tasks, the 940M is the pick; for workstation-adjacent workloads that benefit from memory bandwidth and broader API support, the W4170M has a compelling profile despite its lower raw score.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for general compute and gaming: the NVIDIA GeForce 940M. In the Geekbench OpenCL head-to-head, the 940M scores 6018 against the FirePro W4170M’s 5034, a 19.5% advantage. This is not a marginal lead; it is a decisive margin that will translate into faster shader processing, physics calculations, and OpenCL-accelerated applications. The 940M also holds a higher average benchmark score of 5284 versus 5034 for the AMD part, and it sits at the 31st percentile of all GPUs compared to the W4170M’s 30th. The 940M’s nearest rivals include the GeForce GTX 980M (avg score 5308, only 0.4% ahead) and GeForce 930A (5317, 0.6% ahead), which shows it is punching well above its class in compute tasks. The W4170M, in contrast, sits near the Radeon R5 M430 (5018, 0.3% behind) and Radeon R7 M340 (5063, 0.6% behind), placing it in the lower-midrange of mobile GPU performance.

However, choose the AMD FirePro W4170M if your priority is memory bandwidth and API compatibility over raw compute. The W4170M offers 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth from its GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, which is over four times the 14.40 GB/s of the 940M’s DDR3 on a 64-bit bus. This makes the AMD card substantially faster in memory-bound scenarios like high-resolution texture streaming, large framebuffers, or compute kernels that repeatedly access the same data. Additionally, the W4170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170, whereas the 940M is limited to DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4 — the AMD part offers a higher DirectX feature level for newer titles that leverage 11_1 features. If those are your workloads, the W4170M is the defensible choice despite losing the OpenCL race.

Architecture Differences

The architecture gap between these two is substantial. The 940M uses NVIDIA’s Maxwell architecture on the GM107 chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. That works out to a transistor density of 12.6 million per mm². The FirePro W4170M uses AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture on the Opal chip, also on TSMC’s 28 nm node, but with only 950 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, giving a density of 12.3 million per mm². The 940M has the larger, more complex chip, and it shows in the compute layout: 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 raster operation pipelines. The W4170M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. This means the 940M has 33% more shaders, 33% more TMUs, and double the ROP count, which directly explains its 19.5% OpenCL lead.

Clock speeds also favor NVIDIA. The 940M runs at a base of 1020 MHz with a boost of 1098 MHz, while the W4170M sits at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. Higher clocks plus more execution units yield the 940M’s pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s and texture rate of 35.14 GTexel/s, versus 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s for the AMD card. The FP32 compute figures tell the same story: 1,124.4 GFLOPS for the 940M versus 691.2 GFLOPS for the W4170M. The memory architecture is where AMD fights back: the 940M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus at 1800 Mbps effective, while the W4170M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus at 4 Gbps effective. That yields 64.00 GB/s versus 14.40 GB/s, a 4.4x bandwidth advantage for AMD. The W4170M also uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface, whereas the 940M uses MXM-B (3.0), which is a module form factor rather than a direct PCIe connection.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single available head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it is a decisive win for the NVIDIA GeForce 940M. The 940M scored 6018, while the AMD FirePro W4170M scored 5034. The delta of 19.5% is significant and consistent with the architectural advantage in shading units, TMUs, ROPs, and clock speeds. For context, the 940M’s average benchmark score across all tests is 5284, which is higher than the W4170M’s 5034. The 940M also has a second benchmark result in Geekbench Vulkan at 4549, which the W4170M does not have, indicating better Vulkan performance capability. The 940M’s nearest rivals in the database — the GeForce GTX 980M (5308, -0.4%), GeForce 930A (5317, -0.6%), and GeForce 840M (5322, -0.7%) — all sit within a percentage point of its average score, meaning the 940M is performing at the level of much higher-tier NVIDIA parts. The W4170M’s rivals — Radeon R5 M430 (5018, +0.3%), Radeon R7 M340 (5063, -0.6%), and Radeon R7 240 (5063, -0.6%) — are all lower-tier parts, and the W4170M’s score is right in that range. This highlights that the 940M is a tier above the W4170M in compute performance.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has a higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M scores 6018, which is 19.5% higher than the AMD FirePro W4170M’s 5034.

Q: Why does the AMD FirePro W4170M have a bandwidth advantage?

A: The W4170M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The 940M uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, which yields only 14.40 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GeForce 940M has 512 shading units, while the FirePro W4170M has 384, giving the NVIDIA part a 33% advantage.

Q: What are the DirectX version differences?

A: The FirePro W4170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GeForce 940M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), meaning the AMD card has a higher feature level.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The 940M has an average benchmark score of 5284, while the W4170M has 5034. This puts the 940M at the 31st percentile of all GPUs and the W4170M at the 30th.

Q: What is the process node for both?

A: Both GPUs are manufactured on TSMC’s 28 nm process, but the 940M has a larger die at 148 mm² versus 77 mm² for the W4170M.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 940M wins in every compute-heavy scenario. Its 19.5% OpenCL lead, higher FP32 throughput (1,124.4 GFLOPS vs 691.2 GFLOPS), and double the ROP count (16 vs 8) make it the better choice for gaming, video encoding, and any general-purpose compute workload that relies on shader execution. The 940M’s pixel rate of 17.57 GPixel/s is more than double the W4170M’s 7.200 GPixel/s, which directly benefits rasterization and fill-rate-limited tasks. It also has a Vulkan score of 4549, indicating functional Vulkan 1.4 support, whereas the W4170M supports an older Vulkan 1.2.170 with no listed Vulkan benchmark. If you are running OpenCL-based applications or playing games, the data is unambiguous: the 940M is faster.

The AMD FirePro W4170M wins where memory bandwidth is the bottleneck. Its 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth is 4.4x that of the 940M, which makes it superior for workloads that stream large textures, handle high-resolution framebuffers, or perform data-heavy compute kernels. The W4170M also has a higher DirectX feature level (11_1 vs 11_0), which can be relevant for professional applications that target those features. The PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while narrower than a full x16 slot, is still a direct PCIe connection that may offer lower latency in some configurations compared to the 940M’s MXM-B module. For a workstation-oriented user who values bandwidth and API compatibility over raw shader throughput, the W4170M is the rational pick.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs diverge on nearly every major specification. The 940M uses the GM107 chip with Maxwell architecture, while the W4170M uses the Opal chip with GCN 1.0. Transistor counts differ sharply: 1,870 million for NVIDIA versus 950 million for AMD, and die sizes are 148 mm² versus 77 mm². Clock speeds favor the 940M at 1020 MHz base and 1098 MHz boost, versus 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost for the W4170M. Memory is fundamentally different: the 940M has 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth, while the W4170M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s. The 940M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs; the W4170M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 17.57 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 35.14 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. The 940M specifies a TDP of 75 W, while the W4170M has no listed TDP. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors, and both have portable device dependent display outputs. The bus interface differs: MXM-B (3.0) for the 940M versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the W4170M. DirectX support is 12 (11_0) for NVIDIA and 12 (11_1) for AMD; OpenGL is 4.6 for both; Vulkan is 1.4 for the 940M and 1.2.170 for the W4170M. Release dates are close, with the 940M on 2015-03-12 and the W4170M on 2015-04-22. Both are end-of-life products.