AMD FirePro W4190M vs AMD Radeon R7 M260 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M holds a slim edge, with an average benchmark score of 4505 compared to the Radeon R7 M260's 4499. The performance delta between the two is a marginal 0.1%.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in OpenCL performance specifically?

A: The FirePro W4190M is substantially faster in Geekbench OpenCL, scoring 4505 versus the R7 M260's 3708. This represents a 21.5% advantage for the FirePro part in that particular workload.

Q: Does the Radeon R7 M260 have any benchmark win over the FirePro?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark data, the FirePro W4190M wins the only test (Geekbench OpenCL) by 21.5%. The R7 M260 has zero wins in direct comparisons, although it does have an additional Vulkan score of 5289 that the FirePro lacks.

Q: What is the architectural generation difference between these two chips?

A: The FirePro W4190M is built on GCN 1.0 architecture using the "Opal" chip, while the Radeon R7 M260 uses the newer GCN 3.0 architecture with the "Topaz" chip. Both are manufactured on TSMC's 28 nm process.

Q: How do their memory subsystems differ?

A: The FirePro W4190M uses 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M260 also has 2 GB but uses DDR3 on a narrower 64-bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s — a massive difference in memory throughput.

Q: Which GPU has the higher transistor count and die size?

A: The Radeon R7 M260 is the larger chip, with 1,550 million transistors on a 125 mm² die. The FirePro W4190M packs 950 million transistors into a smaller 77 mm² die. Their transistor densities are nearly identical at 12.4M/mm² and 12.3M/mm² respectively.

Architecture Differences

The FirePro W4190M and Radeon R7 M260 represent two distinct points in AMD's mobile GPU evolution. The FirePro is based on the GCN 1.0 architecture, using the "Opal" chip, while the R7 M260 employs the newer GCN 3.0 architecture with the "Topaz" chip. Despite this generational gap, both are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process, with the R7 M260's die being notably larger at 125 mm² compared to the FirePro's 77 mm².

The transistor counts tell a similar story: the R7 M260 contains 1,550 million transistors versus 950 million for the FirePro. Interestingly, their transistor densities are almost equal — 12.4M/mm² for the R7 M260 and 12.3M/mm² for the FirePro — indicating that the larger die is simply scaled up rather than more efficiently packed.

Both GPUs share identical core configurations: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The architectural differences manifest primarily in clock speeds and memory technology. The FirePro runs at a base clock of 825 MHz with a 900 MHz boost, while the R7 M260 is clocked higher at 940 MHz base and 980 MHz boost. This gives the R7 M260 a slight theoretical advantage in raw compute: 752.6 GFLOPS FP32 versus 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro. The R7 M260 also supports FP16 at 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1), a capability the FirePro lacks.

Memory architecture is where the two diverge most sharply. The FirePro W4190M pairs its 2 GB frame buffer with GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, achieving 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The R7 M260 also has 2 GB but uses DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, yielding just 14.40 GB/s — a 4.4x deficit. This bandwidth gap likely explains the FirePro's superior OpenCL performance despite lower raw FP32 throughput.

API support differs as well. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the R7 M260 supports DirectX 12 (12_0), giving the newer chip full DirectX 12 feature coverage. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170.

The FirePro is designed as an MXM Module with no power connectors, while the R7 M260's slot width and power connector information are not specified. The FirePro's display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," whereas the R7 M260's display outputs are unspecified. Both use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear but nuanced picture. In the only head-to-head test available, the FirePro W4190M wins decisively, beating the R7 M260 by 21.5% in Geekbench OpenCL. This is a substantial margin and suggests the FirePro's GDDR5 memory and 128-bit bus provide a real-world advantage over the R7 M260's DDR3 and 64-bit bus, despite the R7 M260's higher clocks and newer architecture.

However, the overall average scores tell a different story. The FirePro's average benchmark score is 4505, while the R7 M260's is 4499 — a difference of just 0.1%. This near-parity in average scores, combined with the R7 M260's additional Vulkan score of 5289, indicates that the R7 M260 may perform competitively in other workloads not captured in the single OpenCL head-to-head test.

Who should pick which? For users running OpenCL-heavy workloads, the FirePro W4190M is the clear choice — its 21.5% lead in that specific benchmark is significant. The FirePro's 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth is the likely driver of this advantage, making it better suited for memory-bound compute tasks.

For users prioritizing the latest DirectX feature support, the R7 M260's DirectX 12 (12_0) support is a point in its favor over the FirePro's DirectX 12 (11_1). The R7 M260 also offers higher theoretical FP32 performance at 752.6 GFLOPS and FP16 capability, which could benefit certain modern workloads.

The data does not show a universal winner. It shows a specialized one. The FirePro W4190M excels at OpenCL compute, while the R7 M260 offers newer architecture features and higher raw throughput. Users should choose based on workload: OpenCL-centric tasks favor the FirePro; broader modern API compatibility favors the R7 M260.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4190M | AMD Radeon R7 M260 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Opal | Topaz |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | GCN 3.0 |

| Generation | FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) | Gem System (R7 M200) |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,550 million |

| Die Size | 77 mm² | 125 mm² |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 12.4M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 825 MHz | 940 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 900 MHz | 980 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective | 900 MHz, 1800 Mbps effective |

| Memory Type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 14.40 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 7.200 GPixel/s | 7.840 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 23.52 GTexel/s |

| FP32 Performance | 691.2 GFLOPS | 752.6 GFLOPS |

| FP16 Performance | Not specified | 752.6 GFLOPS (1:1) |

| DirectX Support | 12 (11_1) | 12 (12_0) |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | Not specified |

| Power Connectors | None | Not specified |

| Display Outputs | Portable Device Dependent | Not specified |

| Release Date | 2015-11-11 | 2014-06-10 |

| Predecessor | FirePro Mobility | Solar System |

| Successor | Radeon Pro Mobile | Polaris Mobile |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The single head-to-head benchmark result is decisive. In Geekbench OpenCL, the FirePro W4190M scores 4505 against the R7 M260's 3708. That is a 21.5% advantage for the FirePro — a substantial margin that cannot be dismissed as noise.

This result is counterintuitive given the raw specifications. The R7 M260 has higher clocks (940 MHz base, 980 MHz boost versus 825 MHz and 900 MHz), higher FP32 throughput (752.6 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS), and a newer GCN 3.0 architecture. Yet it loses badly in OpenCL.

The explanation lies in memory bandwidth. The FirePro's GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus delivers 64.00 GB/s, while the R7 M260's DDR3 on a 64-bit bus manages only 14.40 GB/s. That is a 4.4x difference in favor of the FirePro. OpenCL workloads are often memory-bound, and the FirePro's bandwidth advantage appears to overwhelm the R7 M260's compute advantages.

The R7 M260 does have a Vulkan score of 5289, but no comparable Vulkan result exists for the FirePro in the data. This prevents a direct Vulkan comparison. However, the R7 M260's average benchmark score of 4499 — which includes both its OpenCL and Vulkan results — is nearly identical to the FirePro's average of 4505. This suggests the R7 M260's Vulkan performance helps it recover from its OpenCL deficit when averaged across workloads.

Nearest rival data places both GPUs in the same percentile bracket at 26, indicating they perform similarly relative to the entire GPU landscape. The FirePro's nearest rivals include the R7 M260 (0.1% delta), Intel HD Graphics P530 (-1.2%), AMD Radeon RX 560 (-1.4%), and AMD Radeon R5 M230 (-1.6%). The R7 M260's nearest rivals are nearly identical: the FirePro (-0.1%), Intel HD Graphics P530 (-1.3%), AMD Radeon RX 560 (-1.5%), and AMD Radeon R5 M230 (-1.7%).

The practical takeaway: in compute-heavy OpenCL scenarios, the FirePro W4190M is the stronger part by a wide margin. In mixed workloads or those leveraging Vulkan or newer DirectX features, the R7 M260's average performance is essentially tied with the FirePro, making the choice workload-dependent rather than clear-cut.