AMD FirePro W4190M vs AMD Radeon R6 M255DX Comparison

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX and AMD FirePro W4190M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions built on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture, yet they target fundamentally different use cases. The R6 M255DX is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) from the Gem System Hybrid generation, while the W4190M is a discrete MXM module from the FirePro Mobile lineup. Benchmark data shows the R6 M255DX scoring 4867 in Geekbench Vulkan, placing it in the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the W4190M scores 4505 in Geekbench OpenCL, landing in the 26th percentile. The R6 M255DX edges out the W4190M by roughly 8% in raw average benchmark score, but the comparison is complicated by different benchmark APIs and vastly different hardware configurations.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture of two devices built for different purposes. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX, with its 4867 Geekbench Vulkan score and 28th percentile ranking, is the better choice for general-purpose graphics workloads that leverage Vulkan. It sits 0.2% above the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M and 0.5% above the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, indicating it performs on par with those older discrete mobile GPUs despite being an integrated solution. Its nearest rival, the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450, is just 0.5% faster, meaning the R6 M255DX is competitive with a desktop-class GPU from a previous generation.

The AMD FirePro W4190M, scoring 4505 in Geekbench OpenCL and sitting in the 26th percentile, is positioned for OpenCL compute workloads. It trails the R6 M255DX by 362 points, but this is not an apples-to-apples comparison since the benchmarks use different APIs. The W4190M’s closest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M260, which is just 0.1% faster, and it also sits near the Intel HD Graphics P530, which is 1.2% faster. The W4190M’s 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units give it a theoretical compute advantage in pure FP32 throughput, but the R6 M255DX’s higher benchmark score suggests real-world Vulkan performance favors the integrated part.

For users prioritizing Vulkan gaming or graphics acceleration, the R6 M255DX is the clear winner based on available data. For users locked into OpenCL compute pipelines, the W4190M offers a dedicated memory interface with 2 GB of GDDR5 and a 128-bit bus, but its benchmark score is lower. The choice ultimately hinges on which API the target software uses, as the R6 M255DX leads in Vulkan while the W4190M is the only one with a dedicated VRAM pool.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same GCN 1.0 architecture, 28 nm process node, and TSMC as the foundry, but their underlying chips differ significantly. The R6 M255DX uses the Jet chip with 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, while the W4190M uses the Opal chip with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. Both achieve the same transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter, confirming they are built on the same process generation.

The compute resource allocation diverges sharply. The W4190M packs 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units, compared to the R6 M255DX’s 320 shading units and 20 TMUs. Both have 8 raster output units. This gives the W4190M a 20% advantage in shading units and TMUs, which directly translates to higher theoretical fill rates: the W4190M achieves 7.200 GPixel/s pixel rate and 21.60 GTexel/s texture rate, versus 6.840 GPixel/s and 17.10 GTexel/s for the R6 M255DX. FP32 compute also favors the W4190M at 691.2 GFLOPS versus 547.2 GFLOPS, a 26% gap.

Clock speeds and memory configurations further separate the two. The R6 M255DX runs at a base clock of 780 MHz with a boost of 855 MHz, while the W4190M runs at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. The R6 M255DX relies on system-shared memory with bandwidth described as "System Dependent," whereas the W4190M has dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus delivering 64.00 GB/s. The W4190M’s memory clock is listed at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective data rate. The R6 M255DX is an IGP with no slot width, while the W4190M is an MXM Module with a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. Both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Where Each One Wins

The R6 M255DX wins in the only direct benchmark comparison available, delivering a 4867 Geekbench Vulkan score that outpaces the W4190M’s 4505 Geekbench OpenCL score. This is notable because Vulkan is a low-overhead graphics API that stresses raw draw call throughput, where the R6 M255DX’s integrated design with system-shared memory apparently performs adequately.

The W4190M wins in raw compute specifications. Its 384 shading units and 24 TMUs provide higher theoretical throughput, and its dedicated GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth eliminates the system-dependency bottleneck that plagues the R6 M255DX. The W4190M’s higher clock speeds (825 MHz base, 900 MHz boost) also give it an edge in clock-for-clock performance. For OpenCL workloads that can utilize the extra shading units, the W4190M should theoretically outperform the R6 M255DX, though the available benchmark data does not confirm this.

The R6 M255DX wins on integration simplicity, being an IGP that requires no power connectors and takes no expansion slot. The W4190M requires an MXM module slot and PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The R6 M255DX also has a 28th percentile ranking versus the W4190M’s 26th, indicating it outperforms a slightly larger share of the GPU population.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has higher raw benchmark performance?

A: The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX scores 4867 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505 in Geekbench OpenCL. The R6 M255DX leads by 362 points, but the benchmarks use different APIs, so direct comparison is not perfectly clean.

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

A: The R6 M255DX is 0.2% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M and 0.5% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX, while being 0.5% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 and 0.7% slower than the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB. The W4190M is 0.1% slower than the AMD Radeon R7 M260, 1.2% slower than the Intel HD Graphics P530, 1.4% slower than the AMD Radeon RX 560, and 1.6% slower than the AMD Radeon R5 M230.

Q: What are the memory configurations?

A: The R6 M255DX uses system-shared memory with no dedicated VRAM, making bandwidth system-dependent. The W4190M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth and a 1000 MHz memory clock.

Q: Which GPU has more compute units?

A: The W4190M has 384 shading units and 24 texture mapping units, compared to the R6 M255DX’s 320 shading units and 20 TMUs. Both have 8 raster output units.

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The R6 M255DX was released on 2014-01-06, and the W4190M was released on 2015-11-11.

Q: What is the performance percentile ranking for each?

A: The R6 M255DX sits in the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the W4190M sits in the 26th percentile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark list is empty, meaning there are no direct same-API comparisons between these two GPUs in the available data. However, their individual benchmark scores provide a basis for analysis. The R6 M255DX’s Geekbench Vulkan score of 4867 is 362 points higher than the W4190M’s Geekbench OpenCL score of 4505, a relative advantage of roughly 8%. This is a meaningful gap, but it must be interpreted cautiously because Vulkan and OpenCL measure different aspects of GPU performance.

The R6 M255DX’s nearest rival data shows it performing within a tight 1.2% band: it is 0.2% above the GTX 560M (4855), 0.5% above the 940MX (4844), 0.5% below the GTS 450 (4893), and 0.7% below the RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901). This clustering indicates the R6 M255DX delivers performance squarely in the range of mid-range GPUs from several generations.

The W4190M’s nearest rivals show a slightly different pattern. It is 0.1% above the R7 M260 (4499), but 1.2% below the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560), 1.4% below the RX 560 (4569), and 1.6% below the R5 M230 (4577). The W4190M’s performance is more tightly grouped at the lower end, with all rivals within a 1.7% band.

The theoretical compute gap is stark: the W4190M delivers 691.2 GFLOPS FP32 versus 547.2 GFLOPS for the R6 M255DX, a 26% advantage. The pixel rate favors the W4190M at 7.200 GPixel/s versus 6.840 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 21.60 GTexel/s versus 17.10 GTexel/s. Despite these theoretical advantages, the W4190M’s benchmark score is lower, suggesting that either the OpenCL benchmark is less favorable to its architecture or the dedicated memory interface does not compensate for other bottlenecks.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The R6 M255DX uses the Jet chip with 690 million transistors and a 56 mm² die size, while the W4190M uses the Opal chip with 950 million transistors and a 77 mm² die size. Both are on a 28 nm process at TSMC with identical transistor density.

Clock speeds differ, with the R6 M255DX at 780 MHz base and 855 MHz boost, while the W4190M runs at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. The memory configurations are fundamentally different: the R6 M255DX uses system-shared memory with system-dependent bandwidth, while the W4190M has 2 GB GDDR5, a 128-bit bus, 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, and a 1000 MHz memory clock.

The shading unit count favors the W4190M at 384 versus 320, and TMUs favor the W4190M at 24 versus 20. Both have 8 ROPs. Fill rates are higher on the W4190M for both pixel (7.200 vs 6.840 GPixel/s) and texture (21.60 vs 17.10 GTexel/s) throughput. FP32 compute is 691.2 GFLOPS on the W4190M versus 547.2 GFLOPS on the R6 M255DX.

The form factors diverge completely: the R6 M255DX is an IGP with no slot width and an IGP bus interface, while the W4190M is an MXM Module with a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. The W4190M has no power connectors, while the R6 M255DX has none listed. Display outputs are portable-device dependent for both. Production status is end-of-life for both, with release dates of 2014-01-06 for the R6 M255DX and 2015-11-11 for the W4190M. The W4190M has a predecessor (FirePro Mobility) and successor (Radeon Pro Mobile), while the R6 M255DX lists neither. Neither has a launch MSRP listed.