AMD FirePro W4190M vs AMD Radeon R5 M230 Comparison

# AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs AMD FirePro W4190M

The AMD Radeon R5 M230 and the AMD FirePro W4190M are both end-of-life mobile GPUs built on the same GCN 1.0 architecture and 28 nm TSMC process, yet they target different segments of the laptop market. The R5 M230 sits in AMD's consumer Gem System (R5 M200) lineup, while the FirePro W4190M belongs to the professional FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) family. Despite their different branding, the benchmark data shows they are remarkably close in raw compute performance, with the R5 M230 edging ahead by a narrow margin. The real differences lie in memory technology, die size, and clock behavior, which have practical implications for specific workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU scores higher in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505. The R5 M230 wins by 1.6%, a margin of 72 points.

Q: How do these GPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The R5 M230 is 0.2% ahead of the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) and 0.4% ahead of the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560), but trails the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621) by 0.9% and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628) by 1.1%. The FirePro W4190M is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499) but falls behind the Intel HD Graphics P530 by 1.2%, the RX 560 by 1.4%, and the R5 M230 by 1.6%.

Q: What are the memory specifications for each GPU?

A: The R5 M230 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 64-bit bus, yielding 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W4190M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, providing 64.00 GB/s bandwidth — exactly four times higher.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same APIs?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. There is no difference in API feature sets.

Q: What are the physical differences between the two chips?

A: The R5 M230 uses the Jet chip with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. The FirePro W4190M uses the Opal chip with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Both have identical transistor density at 12.3M per mm².

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: The R5 M230 is listed as an IGP (integrated GPU) with slot width "IGP," while the FirePro W4190M is an MXM Module with no power connectors required.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same GCN 1.0 architecture and are fabricated by TSMC on a 28 nm process, so the fundamental instruction set and hardware design philosophy are identical. However, the chips themselves differ significantly in size and complexity. The R5 M230's Jet chip packs 690 million transistors into a 56 mm² die, while the FirePro W4190M's Opal chip contains 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. This 37% larger transistor count gives the FirePro more execution resources: 384 shading units versus 320, 24 texture mapping units versus 20, and 8 ROPs on both.

The memory subsystems are architecturally divergent despite similar capacity. The R5 M230 pairs its 64-bit bus with slower DDR3 memory running at 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective), resulting in 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W4190M doubles the bus width to 128-bit and uses faster GDDR5 at the same 1000 MHz base (4 Gbps effective), quadrupling bandwidth to 64.00 GB/s. This is the single largest architectural gap between the two, and it has outsized implications for memory-bound workloads.

Clock behavior also differs. The R5 M230 has no listed base or boost clock in the data, suggesting a fixed or dynamic clock that is not publicly specified. The FirePro W4190M has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz, giving it a defined performance headroom. The R5 M230's unspecified clocks make it harder to predict sustained performance, whereas the FirePro offers a clearer operating envelope. Both GPUs use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and have portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The R5 M230 wins the only direct benchmark comparison, scoring 4577 in Geekbench OpenCL against the FirePro W4190M's 4505. This suggests that in compute-heavy, general-purpose OpenCL workloads, the R5 M230 holds a slight edge. Its higher shading unit count relative to the FirePro is not the reason — the FirePro actually has more shading units (384 vs 320). The R5 M230's advantage likely comes from its unspecified clock speeds potentially running higher, or from driver optimizations in the consumer segment. With a 1.6% lead, this is a narrow victory, but it is consistent across the data.

The FirePro W4190M wins decisively in memory bandwidth. Its 64.00 GB/s versus 16.00 GB/s is a 4x advantage, and its 128-bit bus allows it to move data much faster. This makes the FirePro the better choice for workloads that are memory-intensive, such as large texture uploads, high-resolution framebuffer operations, or data-parallel tasks that saturate bandwidth. The FirePro also has higher raw throughput rates: 7.200 GPixel/s pixel rate versus 4.880 GPixel/s, and 21.60 GTexel/s texture rate versus 12.20 GTexel/s. Its FP32 performance of 691.2 GFLOPS is 77% higher than the R5 M230's 390.4 GFLOPS.

In practical terms, the R5 M230 wins on overall compute score, while the FirePro wins on memory bandwidth and peak throughput metrics. The data suggests the R5 M230 is better suited for general compute tasks where the benchmark reflects real-world performance, while the FirePro excels in scenarios where its wider memory bus and faster GDDR5 can be fully utilized.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every core specification except for process node, foundry, transistor density, ROP count, memory size, bus interface, and API support. The key differences are:

• Chip: Jet (R5 M230) vs Opal (FirePro W4190M)
• Transistors: 690 million vs 950 million
• Die size: 56 mm² vs 77 mm²
• Base clock: Not specified vs 825 MHz
• Boost clock: Not specified vs 900 MHz
• Memory type: DDR3 vs GDDR5
• Memory bus width: 64 bit vs 128 bit
• Memory bandwidth: 16.00 GB/s vs 64.00 GB/s
• Shading units: 320 vs 384
• TMUs: 20 vs 24
• Pixel rate: 4.880 GPixel/s vs 7.200 GPixel/s
• Texture rate: 12.20 GTexel/s vs 21.60 GTexel/s
• FP32 performance: 390.4 GFLOPS vs 691.2 GFLOPS
• Slot width: IGP vs MXM Module
• Power connectors: Not specified vs None
• Generation: Gem System (R5 M200) vs FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)
• Release date: 2014-01-06 vs 2015-11-11

The R5 M230 has no launch MSRP listed, and neither does the FirePro W4190M.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, where the R5 M230 scores 4577 and the FirePro W4190M scores 4505. The R5 M230 wins with a delta of 1.6%. This is a small but measurable difference, placing the two GPUs in nearly the same performance tier. The R5 M230's win count is 1, while the FirePro's is 0.

Contextualizing this result: the R5 M230's score of 4577 puts it in the 27th percentile among all GPUs, while the FirePro's 4505 lands in the 26th percentile. Both are within 1 percentile point of each other, meaning they occupy essentially the same position in the overall performance distribution. The R5 M230's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon RX 560, scores 4569 — just 0.2% behind — while the FirePro's nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 M260, scores 4499 — just 0.1% behind. This clustering suggests that the two GPUs are interchangeable in raw compute terms, with the R5 M230 holding a slight statistical edge.

The FirePro's theoretical advantages do not translate into a higher OpenCL score. Despite having 20% more shading units (384 vs 320), 77% higher FP32 throughput (691.2 vs 390.4 GFLOPS), and 4x memory bandwidth, it still loses to the R5 M230. This is a curious result that raises questions about how the Geekbench OpenCL test scales with hardware resources. It may be that the test is not bandwidth-limited, or that the R5 M230's unspecified clocks are actually higher than the FirePro's 900 MHz boost. The data does not resolve this, but the outcome is clear: the consumer part outperforms the professional part in this specific benchmark.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the AMD Radeon R5 M230 is the winner in Geekbench OpenCL performance, scoring 4577 versus the FirePro W4190M's 4505. For users whose primary concern is raw compute performance in OpenCL applications, the R5 M230 is the safer choice, despite its older release date (2014 vs 2015) and smaller chip.

The AMD FirePro W4190M, however, offers substantial advantages in memory bandwidth and peak throughput metrics. Its 64.00 GB/s bandwidth is 4x higher, its pixel rate is 47% higher, its texture rate is 77% higher, and its FP32 compute is 77% higher. For workloads that can leverage these resources — such as high-resolution texture processing, memory-intensive shaders, or professional applications that benefit from GDDR5 — the FirePro is technically superior on paper. The fact that it loses the OpenCL benchmark despite these advantages suggests that real-world performance may not align with theoretical specs.

The choice depends on the workload. If the user runs a general OpenCL benchmark or similar compute tasks, the R5 M230 wins. If the user needs maximum memory bandwidth or higher peak fill rates, the FirePro W4190M is the better option. Both GPUs are end-of-life and share the same API support, so software compatibility is not a differentiator. The R5 M230's IGP form factor suits integrated designs, while the FirePro's MXM Module form factor is for modular laptop configurations. Ultimately, the data points to a near-tie, with the R5 M230 taking the benchmark crown and the FirePro winning on raw specifications.