GPU Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single benchmark available in the database, Geekbench OpenCL, delivers a clear verdict: the AMD FirePro W5130M outperforms the AMD FirePro W4190M by a decisive margin. The W5130M scores 4,904 points, while the W4190M trails at 4,505 points. That 399-point gap translates to an 8.1% advantage for the W5130M, a substantial lead for a single-generation mobile workstation pairing.

The W5130M's victory is not close, and the underlying hardware explains why. The W5130M carries 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs, while the W4190M makes do with 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and just 8 ROPs. That is a 33% increase in shader count, a 33% increase in texture units, and a doubling of ROPs. Compute throughput tells a similar story: the W5130M delivers 947.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance versus 691.2 GFLOPS for the W4190M. Pixel fill rate also doubles, with the W5130M hitting 14.80 GPixel/s against 7.200 GPixel/s, and texture fill rate rises from 21.60 GTexel/s to 29.60 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds play a secondary but supportive role. The W5130M runs at a 900 MHz base clock and a 925 MHz boost, compared to the W4190M's 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. Both cards use 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with identical 64.00 GB/s bandwidth and 1000 MHz memory clocks. The memory subsystem does not differentiate them; the compute and rasterization hardware does.

The W5130M's nearest rival comparisons add context to its score. It sits 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4,901 points) and 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4,893 points). On the flip side, it trails the AMD Radeon R7 M265 by 0.5% (4,929 points) and the AMD Radeon R7 M360 by 0.5% (4,931 points). The W4190M, by comparison, lands 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4,499 points), 1.2% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4,560 points), 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4,569 points), and 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4,577 points). The W5130M's rival set includes a modern NVIDIA RTX card, which is notable, while the W4190M's rivals skew toward integrated and low-end discrete parts.

In percentile terms, the W5130M ranks in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the W4190M sits at the 26th percentile. That three-percentile gap reflects the W5130M's stronger position in the broader GPU landscape. The benchmark data is unambiguous: across every measured metric in the head-to-head, the W5130M wins.

# The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the AMD FirePro W5130M is the superior workstation GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 8.1%. It also carries more shading units, more texture units, twice the ROPs, higher clocks, and roughly 37% more FP32 compute. For any workload that relies on OpenCL acceleration, rendering, simulation, or compute tasks, the W5130M is the choice.

The W4190M is not without merit, but its merits are narrower. It shares the same 2 GB GDDR5 memory configuration, the same 128-bit bus, and the same 64.00 GB/s bandwidth as the W5130M. It also matches the W5130M on API support, with DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. If a workload is memory-bound rather than compute-bound, the two cards will perform closer than the raw benchmark suggests. But the W4190M's 26th percentile ranking versus the W5130M's 29th percentile confirms that the W5130M sits higher in the overall performance distribution.

Who should pick which? Strictly from the data, a user who needs maximum OpenCL throughput should pick the W5130M. Its 4,904-point score is 8.1% higher, and its hardware specifications, 512 shaders, 16 ROPs, 947.2 GFLOPS, are categorically stronger. A user who is constrained by other factors, such as the system's bus interface or power envelope, might consider the W4190M. The W4190M uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the W5130M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. In a laptop with only an x8 slot, the W4190M is the only drop-in option. The W4190M is also the only one of the two with a defined MXM Module slot width and no power connectors listed, which may simplify integration in certain chassis.

However, there is no performance argument for the W4190M. The benchmark data, the compute specs, and the percentile ranks all favor the W5130M. The W4190M is a lower-tier part in the same FirePro Mobile generation, and the numbers reflect that positioning.

# Where Each One Wins

AMD FirePro W5130M wins on compute throughput. The W5130M's 947.2 GFLOPS FP32 performance is 37% higher than the W4190M's 691.2 GFLOPS. Its 512 shading units and 32 TMUs provide more parallel execution resources. For OpenCL workloads, the W5130M's 4,904-point score is the definitive win.

AMD FirePro W5130M wins on rasterization. With 16 ROPs versus 8, the W5130M doubles the pixel fill rate to 14.80 GPixel/s. Texture fill rate also improves to 29.60 GTexel/s. For any graphics pipeline that is fill-rate limited, the W5130M has a clear edge.

AMD FirePro W4190M wins on integration flexibility. The W4190M is specified as an MXM Module with no power connectors required, and it uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The W5130M lists no slot width and no power connector details, and it requires PCIe 3.0 x16. In systems with limited PCIe lanes, the W4190M is the practical fit.

AMD FirePro W4190M wins on memory parity. Both cards have 2 GB GDDR5, a 128-bit bus, and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The W4190M does not sacrifice memory capacity or bandwidth relative to the W5130M, so memory-bound tasks see no penalty.

AMD FirePro W5130M wins on overall benchmark position. The W5130M's 29th percentile placement beats the W4190M's 26th percentile. Its nearest rival list includes the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, a modern card, while the W4190M's nearest rivals are older or lower-tier parts.

AMD FirePro W4190M wins on die efficiency. The W4190M's Opal chip packs 950 million transistors into 77 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The W5130M's Tropo chip uses 1,500 million transistors across 123 mm², with a nearly identical density of 12.2M per mm². The W4190M achieves comparable density with a smaller, simpler die.

# FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4,904 points, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4,505 points. The W5130M leads by 8.1%.

Q: Do the two GPUs have the same memory configuration?

A: Yes. Both feature 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth and a 1000 MHz memory clock (4 Gbps effective).

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The W5130M has 512 shading units, while the W4190M has 384 shading units. The W5130M also has 32 TMUs versus 24, and 16 ROPs versus 8.

Q: What is the FP32 compute difference?

A: The W5130M delivers 947.2 GFLOPS, compared to 691.2 GFLOPS for the W4190M. That is a 37% advantage for the W5130M.

Q: Which GPU ranks higher among all GPUs?

A: The W5130M sits in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the W4190M sits in the 26th percentile.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

# Architecture Differences

The two GPUs share a common architectural foundation but diverge significantly in implementation. Both are built on GCN 1.0 architecture and manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process node. Both belong to the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation and have a production status of end-of-life. Their predecessors and successors are identical: FirePro Mobility before, and Radeon Pro Mobile after.

The chips themselves are different. The W4190M uses the Opal chip, while the W5130M uses the Tropo chip. Opal packs 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². Tropo is substantially larger, with 1,500 million transistors on a 123 mm² die, yielding a nearly identical density of 12.2M per mm². The transistor count difference is a 58% increase for Tropo, which directly enables the W5130M's higher resource counts.

The compute architectures are identical in generation but not in scale. The W5130M's 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs represent a full implementation of the Tropo design. The W4190M's 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs represent a cut-down version of the Opal design. Both lack dedicated ray tracing cores and tensor cores, which is consistent with their GCN 1.0 lineage.

Clock behavior differs slightly. The W4190M runs at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. The W5130M runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost. The W5130M's boost clock is only 2.8% higher than the W4190M's, but the base clock is 9.1% higher, which matters for sustained workloads.

The memory systems are architecturally identical. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 with a 128-bit bus, 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, and 1000 MHz memory clock. There is no difference in memory capacity, type, or bandwidth.

The bus interfaces differ. The W4190M connects via PCIe 3.0 x8, while the W5130M uses PCIe 3.0 x16. This is a meaningful architectural difference for data transfer to and from the CPU. The W5130M has twice the PCIe bandwidth available, which can benefit workloads that stream large datasets.

The physical specifications also differ. The W4190M is defined as an MXM Module with no power connectors. The W5130M has no listed slot width or power connector information. The W4190M's MXM form factor is a specific integration constraint that the W5130M does not share.

Both GPUs support the same API set: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Neither has FP16 support listed. The display outputs for the W4190M are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," while the W5130M has no display output information. Neither card has a launch MSRP listed in the data.

In summary, the architecture is the same GCN 1.0 generation, but the W5130M is a larger, more fully featured implementation. The Tropo chip's extra transistors translate directly into more shaders, more texture units, more ROPs, and higher clocks. The W4190M's Opal chip is a smaller, lower-power design with the same memory subsystem but fewer compute resources. The result is an 8.1% benchmark gap that reflects a fundamental difference in chip scale.