GPU Comparison

The AMD FirePro W4170M and NVIDIA GeForce 940MX are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions from the 28 nm era, aimed at different segments of the laptop market. The data shows a close contest, with the AMD part edging out its rival in the single available benchmark, while the NVIDIA card counters with a distinct architectural and feature-set advantage. The FirePro W4170M is a workstation-oriented part, while the 940MX is a mainstream consumer GPU, and their specification sheets reflect these different design goals.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison in the data is the Geekbench OpenCL test. Here, the AMD FirePro W4170M scores 5034 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX scores 4939 points. This gives the AMD part a 1.9% lead over the NVIDIA card, a narrow margin that places them in the same performance tier. In practical terms, this delta is small enough that real-world application differences could easily swing the result either way, but in a strict head-to-head, the FirePro W4170M takes the win.

Looking at the broader context from the nearestRivals data, the FirePro W4170M's 5034 score places it just 0.3% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018) and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics (4998). It is slightly behind the AMD Radeon R7 M340 and R7 240, both scoring 5063, a 0.6% deficit. This clustering shows that the W4170M sits squarely in the middle of a dense pack of low-end mobile and desktop GPUs.

The GeForce 940MX, with its 4939 OpenCL score, is positioned differently. It is 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (4855) and 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867), but 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791). The presence of a high-end desktop card like the RTX 3080 in its rival list is an anomaly, likely due to a single outlier benchmark run, but it does not change the fact that the 940MX's raw compute score is lower than the W4170M's.

The 940MX also has a Vulkan benchmark score of 4749, which is notably lower than its OpenCL result. The W4170M lacks a Vulkan score in the data, so no direct comparison can be made on that API, but the 940MX's own numbers suggest its Vulkan performance is about 3.8% weaker than its OpenCL performance. This could indicate driver maturity or architectural quirks, but without a W4170M Vulkan score, it is merely an observation about the NVIDIA part alone.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the AMD FirePro W4170M is the faster GPU. Its 1.9% advantage in the sole head-to-head test is real, even if modest. If your primary concern is raw OpenCL compute throughput, the W4170M is the pick. It also holds a higher percentile rank, sitting at the 30th percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 940MX's 28th percentile. This confirms that the AMD part is marginally better positioned in the overall performance distribution.

However, the choice is not simply about raw speed. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX offers a more modern feature set in some respects. It supports Vulkan 1.4, while the W4170M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170. For users targeting the latest Vulkan titles or applications, this could be a decisive factor, as the 940MX is better prepared for newer software that leverages the updated API. The 940MX also has a higher TDP at 23 W, but both are MXM modules with no power connectors, so power delivery is not a differentiator in the data.

The FirePro W4170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the 940MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0). This is a subtle difference, but it means the AMD card can handle certain DirectX 12 features that the NVIDIA card cannot. If you are working with specific workstation applications that rely on those features, the W4170M has a technical edge. For general gaming or consumer workloads, this distinction is unlikely to matter, as the 940MX's lower DirectX version is still broadly compatible.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4170M wins in raw compute performance. Its 691.2 GFLOPS FP32 throughput is higher than the 940MX's 881.7 GFLOPS? No, reading the data again, the 940MX has a higher FP32 figure. The W4170M's advantage is in the OpenCL benchmark, not in theoretical peak. The W4170M also has a higher pixel rate at 7.200 GPixel/s versus the 940MX's 6.888 GPixel/s, suggesting it can fill frames marginally faster in fill-rate-bound scenarios. Its memory bandwidth is also superior, at 64.00 GB/s over the 940MX's 40.10 GB/s, a 59.6% advantage that could help in bandwidth-sensitive tasks like high-resolution texture streaming.

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX wins in texture processing and raw shader throughput. Its 27.55 GTexel/s texture rate is notably higher than the W4170M's 21.60 GTexel/s, a 27.5% lead. It also has more shading units (512 vs. 384) and more texture mapping units (32 vs. 24), which explains its higher FP32 peak of 881.7 GFLOPS. For workloads that are heavily shader-bound, such as certain physics simulations or compute shaders, the 940MX has the theoretical advantage. Its support for Vulkan 1.4 also gives it a forward-looking edge in API compatibility.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL test?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M, with a score of 5034, is 1.9% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX's 4939 score.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX support a newer Vulkan version?

A: Yes, the 940MX supports Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD FirePro W4170M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: Which card has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M, with 64.00 GB/s, offers 59.6% more bandwidth than the 940MX's 40.10 GB/s, despite both using GDDR5 memory.

Q: What is the difference in DirectX support?

A: The AMD FirePro W4170M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

Q: How do their transistor counts compare?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has 1,870 million transistors, nearly double the AMD FirePro W4170M's 950 million.

Q: Which GPU has a higher texture fill rate?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, with a rate of 27.55 GTexel/s, is 27.5% faster than the AMD FirePro W4170M's 21.60 GTexel/s.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The AMD FirePro W4170M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on the "Opal" chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX uses the Maxwell architecture on the "GM107" chip. Both are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, but the similarities end there. The GCN 1.0 design is older, dating back to 2012, and is known for its compute-oriented design. Maxwell, on the other hand, was a more recent architecture at the time, focused on power efficiency and gaming performance per watt.

The die sizes reflect this difference. The AMD chip is 77 mm², while the NVIDIA chip is 148 mm², nearly twice as large. Despite the larger die, the transistor density is similar: 12.3M / mm² for AMD and 12.6M / mm² for NVIDIA. This means the NVIDIA chip packs more transistors into a larger area, resulting in a total transistor count of 1,870 million versus AMD's 950 million. This 96.8% difference in transistor count is significant, yet the AMD chip still manages to win the OpenCL benchmark, indicating that GCN 1.0 is more efficient in this specific compute test.

The memory architectures also differ. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5, but the AMD part has a 128-bit bus, while the NVIDIA part uses a 64-bit bus. This is why the W4170M has a much higher bandwidth figure. The memory clock speeds also differ: the AMD memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the NVIDIA memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The higher clock speed on the narrower bus does not compensate for the bus width difference, leaving NVIDIA at a bandwidth disadvantage.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences between the two cards. The most obvious is the shading unit count: the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX has 512 shading units, while the AMD FirePro W4170M has 384. Similarly, the NVIDIA card has 32 TMUs versus AMD's 24. Both have 8 ROPs, so pixel output is equal in terms of hardware count, but the AMD card's higher clock speed gives it a slightly better pixel rate.

Clock speeds favor the AMD card. The W4170M has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz, while the 940MX runs at 795 MHz base and 861 MHz boost. This 4.5% higher boost clock contributes to the AMD card's OpenCL win, despite having fewer cores. The FP32 performance tells a different story: the 940MX achieves 881.7 GFLOPS, while the W4170M manages 691.2 GFLOPS. This 27.6% difference in theoretical compute is not reflected in the benchmark, suggesting that the GCN architecture extracts more real-world performance from its lower peak.

The TDP is listed only for the NVIDIA card, at 23 W, while the AMD card's TDP is not provided in the data. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors and a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for both, meaning they rely on the laptop's built-in panel. The API support differs as noted, with AMD offering DirectX 12 (11_1) and NVIDIA offering DirectX 12 (11_0), as well as the Vulkan version gap. The release dates also differ, with the W4170M launching in April 2015 and the 940MX in June 2016, making the NVIDIA part a later-generation product despite its similar performance.