AMD FirePro W4170M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M Comparison

AMD FirePro W4170M and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on a 28 nm process at TSMC, but they serve fundamentally different roles in the database. The FirePro W4170M is a workstation-oriented part with a compact die, while the GTX 970M is a larger, higher-throughput consumer gaming chip. The benchmark record includes a single shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, where the GTX 970M dominates. However, the surrounding specification data reveals contrasting design philosophies, memory configurations, and API support levels that matter for different workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce GTX 970M wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark available. In Geekbench OpenCL, the GTX 970M scores 18,946 against the FirePro W4170M's 5,034, a delta of -73.4% from the perspective of the AMD part. This is not a marginal gap; it is a 3.76x raw score advantage, driven by the NVIDIA chip's far larger execution resource pool. The GTX 970M carries 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 render output units, against the FirePro's 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The GTX 970M also boosts to 1,038 MHz versus 900 MHz for the FirePro, and its FP32 throughput is 2.657 TFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. For any compute-heavy task, the GTX 970M is the clear winner.

The FirePro W4170M's wins are more subtle. It does not lead in raw compute, but it wins on efficiency of die usage and portability. The FirePro chip, codenamed Opal, has a die size of only 77 mm² and 950 million transistors, yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million per mm². The GTX 970M's GM204 die is 398 mm² with 5,200 million transistors, a density of 13.1 million per mm². The FirePro is smaller and lighter, which is relevant for thin-and-light mobile workstations. Its memory bus is 128-bit with 2 GB GDDR5, while the GTX 970M uses a 192-bit bus with 6 GB GDDR5. For large datasets or high-resolution textures, the GTX 970M's 6 GB capacity is a decisive advantage, but for basic CAD or office graphics, the FirePro's lower footprint may be preferable. The FirePro also supports Vulkan 1.2.170, an older API revision, while the GTX 970M supports Vulkan 1.4, which is more current. In the database, the FirePro's nearest rivals (AMD Radeon R5 M430, R7 M340, R7 240, R7 Graphics) all score within a 0.7% delta of its 5,034 average, indicating it sits in a low-performance cluster. The GTX 970M's nearest rivals (NVIDIA Quadro M3000M, AMD Radeon R5 M320, RX 9060 XT 16 GB, R5 M230) also cluster within 1.1% of its average, but that average is 4,628, which is lower than the FirePro's 5,034 average due to the inclusion of many non-OpenCL tests in the GTX 970M's benchmark set.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The FirePro W4170M uses GCN 1.0, AMD's first-generation Graphics Core Next design, which was built for compute and workstation tasks. The GTX 970M uses Maxwell 2.0, NVIDIA's second-generation Maxwell architecture, which emphasizes power efficiency and high clock speeds. Both are 28 nm parts from TSMC, but the transistor counts differ by a factor of 5.5: 950 million versus 5,200 million. The FirePro's die is 77 mm², the GTX 970M's is 398 mm², a 5.2x area difference. This translates directly to shading unit counts: 384 versus 1,280, a ratio of 3.33x. TMUs scale similarly, 24 versus 80 (3.33x), while ROPs scale more steeply, 8 versus 48 (6x). The GTX 970M's pixel rate is 49.82 GPixel/s versus the FirePro's 7.20 GPixel/s, and its texture rate is 83.04 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s.

Memory architecture differs in width and capacity. The FirePro has a 128-bit bus and 2 GB GDDR5 at 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 970M has a 192-bit bus and 6 GB GDDR5 at 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), yielding 120.3 GB/s bandwidth. This is a 1.88x bandwidth advantage for the NVIDIA part. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1) while the GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), meaning the NVIDIA part is compliant with a higher feature level. OpenGL is 4.6 on both. Vulkan support differs: 1.2.170 on AMD versus 1.4 on NVIDIA. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors, and display outputs are portable-device dependent. The FirePro's bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GTX 970M uses MXM-B (3.0). Neither part has a TDP listed in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw compute performance?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M, with FP32 throughput of 2.657 TFLOPS versus the AMD FirePro W4170M's 691.2 GFLOPS. This is a 3.85x difference in theoretical peak.

Q: How much memory does each GPU have, and what is the bandwidth?

A: The FirePro W4170M has 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, giving 64.00 GB/s. The GTX 970M has 6 GB GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, giving 120.3 GB/s.

Q: What are the architecture generations?

A: The FirePro uses GCN 1.0, while the GTX 970M uses Maxwell 2.0. Both are built on a 28 nm process at TSMC.

Q: Which GPU has a higher shading unit count?

A: The GTX 970M has 1,280 shading units, compared to the FirePro's 384, a 3.33x ratio.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each GPU?

A: The FirePro's average benchmark score is 5,034, based on its single Geekbench OpenCL result. The GTX 970M's average is 4,628, derived from ten different benchmark tests including 3DMark, PassMark, and Geekbench.

Q: Which GPU supports a newer Vulkan version?

A: The GTX 970M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W4170M supports Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ on nearly every core specification. Process node is identical (28 nm TSMC), but transistor count is 950 million for the FirePro versus 5,200 million for the GTX 970M. Die size is 77 mm² versus 398 mm². Transistor density is 12.3M per mm² versus 13.1M per mm². Clock speeds: the FirePro's base is 825 MHz and boost is 900 MHz; the GTX 970M's base is 924 MHz and boost is 1,038 MHz. Memory clock is 1,000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus 1,253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). Memory capacity is 2 GB versus 6 GB, bus width is 128-bit versus 192-bit, and bandwidth is 64.00 GB/s versus 120.3 GB/s. Shading units are 384 versus 1,280, TMUs are 24 versus 80, and ROPs are 8 versus 48. Pixel rate is 7.200 GPixel/s versus 49.82 GPixel/s, texture rate is 21.60 GTexel/s versus 83.04 GTexel/s, and FP32 is 691.2 GFLOPS versus 2.657 TFLOPS. API support: DirectX 12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6 on both, Vulkan 1.2.170 versus 1.4. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 versus MXM-B (3.0). Release dates differ: the FirePro launched on 2015-04-22, the GTX 970M on 2014-10-06. The FirePro's predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile; the GTX 970M's predecessor is GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only shared benchmark in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. The FirePro W4170M scores 5,034, while the GTX 970M scores 18,946. The delta is -73.4% for the AMD part, meaning the NVIDIA GPU outperforms it by a factor of 3.76. This result is consistent with the theoretical specification gap: the GTX 970M has 3.33x more shading units, 3.33x more TMUs, 6x more ROPs, and 1.88x more memory bandwidth. The boost clock difference (1,038 MHz versus 900 MHz) adds a further 15% clock advantage, which when combined with the resource advantage explains the massive score gap. The GTX 970M also has a higher pixel rate (49.82 GPixel/s versus 7.20 GPixel/s) and texture rate (83.04 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s), so it wins in every measured dimension. The FirePro's sole advantage is its smaller die and lower transistor count, which may imply lower power draw, but no TDP figures are recorded for either part.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is the superior performer in the single available comparison. It wins the only head-to-head test by a 73.4% margin, and its specification sheet is superior in every computational metric: shading units, TMUs, ROPs, clock speed, memory capacity, memory bandwidth, pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 throughput. It also supports a newer DirectX feature level (12_1 versus 11_1) and a newer Vulkan revision (1.4 versus 1.2.170). The GTX 970M should be chosen for any task that demands graphics or compute performance, such as gaming, 3D rendering, or GPU-accelerated processing.

The AMD FirePro W4170M, however, is not without a niche. It has a 77 mm² die versus 398 mm², meaning it is physically smaller and likely easier to integrate into compact mobile workstations. Its 2 GB memory may be sufficient for basic workstation tasks like spreadsheet acceleration or entry-level CAD, where the GTX 970M's 6 GB would be overkill. The FirePro's average benchmark score of 5,034 is actually higher than the GTX 970M's 4,628, but this is misleading because the NVIDIA part's average includes many lower-scoring tests (PassMark DirectX 9 at 99, DirectX 12 at 24, DirectX 10 at 28), while the FirePro has only one high-scoring OpenCL result. For users who prioritize compute performance, the GTX 970M is the only logical choice. For users who need a minimal-footprint mobile GPU with adequate workstation-level capability, the FirePro W4170M is a viable option, but the database does not record any test where it beats the GTX 970M. The verdict is clear: the GeForce GTX 970M wins the performance crown, while the FirePro W4170M offers a smaller, lighter alternative for low-intensity workloads.