AMD FirePro W4190M vs AMD Radeon R5 M420 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records a single head-to-head benchmark between these two mobile GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. The AMD FirePro W4190M posts a score of 4505, while the AMD Radeon R5 M420 scores 3956. That gives the FirePro a clear 13.9% advantage in compute performance, a decisive margin for any OpenCL workload.

Context matters here. The FirePro W4190M sits just 0.1% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (score 4499) and trails the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560) by 1.2%. It is also 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) and 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577). In short, the FirePro lands in a cluster of GPUs separated by only a few percentage points, but it comes out on top of its direct competitor in this page's comparison.

The Radeon R5 M420, by contrast, finds itself in a slightly lower tier. Its score of 3956 is essentially tied with the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957, delta 0%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953, delta 0.1%). It trails the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964) by 0.2% and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977) by 0.5%. The R5 M420's percentile ranking among all GPUs is 23, versus 26 for the FirePro W4190M, which confirms the FirePro's higher standing in the overall performance distribution.

The 13.9% delta between the two cards is the largest gap in either GPU's nearest-rival table. It is not a marginal difference like the 0.1% or 0.2% deltas seen elsewhere; it represents a real generational and specification gulf. The FirePro wins the only recorded head-to-head test, and the win count stands at 1 for the FirePro and 0 for the Radeon.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU scores higher in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505, which is 13.9% ahead of the AMD Radeon R5 M420's 3956.

Q: How does the FirePro W4190M compare to its nearest rivals?

A: It is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499), but 1.2% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560), 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569), and 1.6% behind the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577).

Q: Where does the Radeon R5 M420 rank among its nearest competitors?

A: It is effectively tied with the NVIDIA GeForce 830M (3957) and NVIDIA GeForce GT 745M (3953), while trailing the NVIDIA Quadro K2000 (3964) by 0.2% and the AMD Radeon HD 6850 X2 (3977) by 0.5%.

Q: What are the memory configurations of the two cards?

A: The FirePro W4190M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M420 uses 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which card has a higher clock speed?

A: The FirePro W4190M runs at a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz, while the Radeon R5 M420 runs at 780 MHz base and 850 MHz boost.

Q: Do both cards support the same APIs?

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

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture and use a 28 nm process at TSMC. The transistor density is identical at 12.3M per square millimeter, which makes sense given the shared process node. However, the underlying chips differ substantially. The FirePro W4190M uses the Opal chip, which packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The Radeon R5 M420 uses the smaller Jet chip, with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

That difference in silicon translates directly into compute resources. The FirePro W4190M carries 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Radeon R5 M420 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and the same 8 ROPs. The FirePro therefore has 20% more shading units and 20% more TMUs, which explains its higher fill rates: 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s for the FirePro versus 6.800 GPixel/s and 17.00 GTexel/s for the Radeon.

The memory subsystems diverge even more sharply. The FirePro uses GDDR5 memory running at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon R5 M420 uses DDR3 memory at the same 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective) but on a mere 64-bit bus, yielding just 16.00 GB/s. That is a fourfold difference in memory bandwidth, a critical factor for any GPU-bound workload.

The production status for both is end-of-life, and both are mobile parts. The FirePro comes as an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the Radeon is an IGP with no power connector data recorded. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface and have display outputs described as portable device dependent.

The release dates differ by about six months: the FirePro launched in November 2015, the Radeon in May 2016. The FirePro's generation is listed as FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) with a predecessor of FirePro Mobility and successor Radeon Pro Mobile. The Radeon's generation is Gem System (R5 M400), with predecessor Solar System and successor Polaris Mobile.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ on nearly every specification that matters for raw performance. Starting with clocks, the FirePro W4190M runs at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost, while the Radeon R5 M420 runs at 780 MHz base and 850 MHz boost. The FirePro is faster at both ends of the clock curve.

Memory is where the gap becomes stark. The FirePro has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon has 4 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth. The Radeon has more capacity, but the FirePro has four times the bandwidth, a far more consequential spec for sustained throughput.

The compute units scale accordingly. The FirePro has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs, while the Radeon has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. Pixel rates are 7.200 GPixel/s versus 6.800 GPixel/s, and texture rates are 21.60 GTexel/s versus 17.00 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro versus 544.0 GFLOPS for the Radeon.

The chips themselves differ: Opal versus Jet, with 950 million versus 690 million transistors, and die sizes of 77 mm² versus 56 mm². The form factor also differs: MXM Module versus IGP, though both are mobile-oriented. The bus interface is the same (PCIe 3.0 x8), and the API support is identical across DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4190M wins in compute performance, and it wins decisively. The 13.9% Geekbench OpenCL lead means it is the better choice for any application that stresses general-purpose GPU compute, such as OpenCL-accelerated rendering, image processing, or scientific workloads. Its GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth gives it a massive advantage in memory-bound tasks, and its higher shading unit count (384 versus 320) provides more parallel execution resources. The higher clock speeds (900 MHz boost versus 850 MHz) further widen the gap. The FirePro's percentile rank of 26 versus 23 for the Radeon confirms its higher position in the overall GPU hierarchy.

The AMD Radeon R5 M420 has one clear specification advantage: memory capacity. It offers 4 GB of DDR3, double the FirePro's 2 GB of GDDR5. For workloads that require large working sets in video memory, such as holding multiple high-resolution textures or large datasets, the Radeon can keep more data resident. It also benefits from a more recent release date (May 2016 versus November 2015), which may matter for platform compatibility in newer systems. However, the Radeon's 64-bit memory bus and DDR3 type severely cap its effective bandwidth at 16.00 GB/s, meaning that even with more capacity, it will struggle to feed its shading units as quickly as the FirePro.

For gaming, the data is less flattering to the Radeon. The FirePro's higher fill rates (7.200 GPixel/s versus 6.800 GPixel/s) and texture rates (21.60 GTexel/s versus 17.00 GTexel/s) suggest better performance in rasterization-heavy scenes. The Radeon's only path to competitiveness would be scenarios where its extra memory capacity outweighs its 13.9% compute deficit, which is unlikely in most real-time 3D workloads.

In summary, the FirePro W4190M is the stronger GPU for virtually all compute and graphics tasks. The Radeon R5 M420 is the choice only when memory capacity is the binding constraint, and even then, its bandwidth limitations make it a poor substitute for a card with GDDR5. The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity: the FirePro wins the head-to-head, and its specification sheet supports that result across every relevant metric.