AMD FirePro W4190M vs AMD Radeon R7 M260X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and it delivers a clear verdict. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690 points, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505 points. That is a 26.3% advantage for the R7 M260X, a substantial gap in raw compute performance. This is not a marginal difference that could be written off to driver variance or thermal state; it is a decisive margin that puts the two mobile GPUs in different performance classes.

Looking at the broader database context, the R7 M260X sits at the 30th percentile among all GPUs, with an average benchmark score of 5161. Its nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M at 5154 (a 0.1% difference, essentially a tie), the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M at 5211 (where the R7 M260X trails by 1%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M at 5236 (trailing by 1.4%). The R7 M260X also edges out the AMD Radeon R7 240 by 1.9%. This places the R7 M260X in a tight cluster of mid-range mobile and desktop parts, where a few percent separates competitors.

The FirePro W4190M, by contrast, sits at the 26th percentile, with an average score of 4505. Its nearest rivals are the AMD Radeon R7 M260 at 4499 (a 0.1% difference), the Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 (trailing by 1.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4569 (trailing by 1.4%), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4577 (trailing by 1.6%). The FirePro W4190M is effectively at the bottom of its immediate peer group, narrowly below several integrated and entry-level discrete solutions. The data shows that the FirePro W4190M is not just slower than the R7 M260X; it is slower than most of the GPUs it is compared against in the database.

The head-to-head record is 1 win for the R7 M260X and 0 for the FirePro W4190M. There is no benchmark category in the database where the FirePro W4190M comes out ahead. The OpenCL result alone is enough to establish the hierarchy, but the gap in average scores (5161 versus 4505) reinforces the point. The R7 M260X is roughly 14.6% faster than the FirePro W4190M on average across all recorded benchmarks, even before isolating the direct comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 M260X scores 5690 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505. The R7 M260X wins by 26.3%.

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

A: The R7 M260X is effectively tied with the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M (0.1% difference) and trails the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M by 1%. The FirePro W4190M is effectively tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (0.1% difference) and trails the Intel HD Graphics P530 by 1.2%.

Q: Do both GPUs use the same memory type and bus width?

A: Yes, both use GDDR5 memory with a 128-bit bus width. However, the R7 M260X has 1024 MB of memory, while the FirePro W4190M has 2 GB.

Q: Are the clock speeds different between the two?

A: Yes. The R7 M260X has a base clock of 620 MHz and a boost clock of 715 MHz. The FirePro W4190M has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz. The memory clock is identical at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Q: Which GPU has better pixel and texture throughput?

A: The FirePro W4190M has higher rates: 7.200 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s, and 21.60 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s. The FirePro W4190M also has higher FP32 compute at 691.2 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS.

Q: What is the form factor difference?

A: The R7 M260X is listed as having a portable device dependent output with no slot width specified. The FirePro W4190M is specified as an MXM Module.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins decisively in the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test. With a 26.3% lead, it is the clear choice for any workload that relies on OpenCL compute. This includes tasks like video encoding acceleration, physics simulations, and general-purpose GPU compute in applications that leverage OpenCL. The R7 M260X also has the higher average benchmark score (5161 versus 4505), which suggests it is the more consistent performer across the board, even though only one test is directly recorded.

The AMD FirePro W4190M, despite losing the compute benchmark, has advantages in other measured specifications. Its base clock of 825 MHz and boost clock of 900 MHz are significantly higher than the R7 M260X's 620 MHz and 715 MHz. This translates into higher pixel rate (7.200 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 throughput (691.2 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS). For workloads that are not captured by OpenCL benchmarks, such as traditional graphics rendering that relies on pixel throughput, the FirePro W4190M has a theoretical edge. The doubled memory capacity (2 GB versus 1024 MB) also gives it an advantage in scenarios where texture data exceeds 1 GB, even though the bandwidth is identical at 64.00 GB/s.

The FirePro W4190M also carries the "FirePro" branding, which historically indicates certification for professional applications. However, the database does not record any specific professional application benchmarks, so this advantage cannot be quantified here. The recorded data shows that the FirePro W4190M wins on clock speed, pixel rate, texture rate, FP32 compute, and memory capacity, but loses on the actual compute benchmark that was run.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs share the same chip (Opal), architecture (GCN 1.0), process node (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistor count (950 million), die size (77 mm²), and transistor density (12.3M / mm²). They also both have 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The memory type is GDDR5 for both, with a 128-bit bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth.

The differences are as follows:

• Memory size: 1024 MB on the R7 M260X versus 2 GB on the FirePro W4190M.
• Base clock: 620 MHz on the R7 M260X versus 825 MHz on the FirePro W4190M.
• Boost clock: 715 MHz on the R7 M260X versus 900 MHz on the FirePro W4190M.
• Pixel rate: 5.720 GPixel/s on the R7 M260X versus 7.200 GPixel/s on the FirePro W4190M.
• Texture rate: 17.16 GTexel/s on the R7 M260X versus 21.60 GTexel/s on the FirePro W4190M.
• FP32: 549.1 GFLOPS on the R7 M260X versus 691.2 GFLOPS on the FirePro W4190M.
• Slot width: not specified on the R7 M260X versus MXM Module on the FirePro W4190M.
• Generation: "Gem System (R7 M200)" for the R7 M260X versus "FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)" for the FirePro W4190M.
• Predecessor: Solar System for the R7 M260X versus FirePro Mobility for the FirePro W4190M.
• Successor: Polaris Mobile for the R7 M260X versus Radeon Pro Mobile for the FirePro W4190M.
• Release date: 2015-12-05 for the R7 M260X versus 2015-11-11 for the FirePro W4190M.

The APIs are identical: DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8 and have no power connectors. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on the same underlying architecture: GCN 1.0, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. They use the identical Opal chip, meaning the silicon is the same. The transistor count is 950 million on a 77 mm² die, giving a density of 12.3M transistors per square millimeter. The core configuration is identical: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. Neither GPU has ray tracing cores or tensor cores, consistent with the GCN 1.0 generation.

The architectural difference is purely in how the silicon is configured and clocked. The FirePro W4190M runs the same chip at higher clocks, which is why its pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 figures are all higher. The R7 M260X runs the same chip at lower clocks, but the benchmark results show that the R7 M260X still wins in OpenCL compute. This suggests that the clock speed advantage of the FirePro W4190M does not translate into better real-world compute performance in the recorded test, possibly due to different power management, driver tuning, or thermal constraints in the mobile implementations.

The memory subsystem is architecturally identical: GDDR5, 128-bit bus, 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, and 1000 MHz memory clock (4 Gbps effective). The only memory difference is capacity, with the FirePro W4190M offering 2 GB versus 1 GB. Both support PCIe 3.0 x8, both have no power connectors, and both have the same DirectX, OpenGL, and Vulkan API support.

The generations differ: the R7 M260X belongs to the "Gem System (R7 M200)" family, while the FirePro W4190M belongs to "FirePro Mobile (Wx100M)". The predecessor and successor lines also differ, with the R7 M260X following Solar System and leading to Polaris Mobile, while the FirePro W4190M follows FirePro Mobility and leads to Radeon Pro Mobile. These are branding and product-line distinctions rather than architectural ones, as the chip itself is identical.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice for most users. The AMD Radeon R7 M260X wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark by 26.3%, has a higher average benchmark score (5161 versus 4505), and sits at a higher percentile among all GPUs (30th versus 26th). If the workload is OpenCL compute, the R7 M260X is the clear pick. It also holds its own against its nearest rivals, matching the NVIDIA Quadro K3100M within 0.1% and trailing the NVIDIA Quadro 4000M by only 1%.

The AMD FirePro W4190M is not without merit. Its higher clocks (825 MHz base, 900 MHz boost versus 620 MHz and 715 MHz), higher pixel rate (7.200 GPixel/s versus 5.720 GPixel/s), higher texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s versus 17.16 GTexel/s), and higher FP32 (691.2 GFLOPS versus 549.1 GFLOPS) indicate that it is the faster part on paper for fill-rate-bound workloads. Its 2 GB memory capacity is also double the R7 M260X's 1 GB, which matters for applications that need larger working sets. However, these advantages did not translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the decision hinges on what the GPU will actually run. The R7 M260X is the better choice for OpenCL compute and general benchmark performance, and it is the more competitive part relative to its peers. The FirePro W4190M is the better choice for applications that are sensitive to pixel fill rate or texture throughput, or that require more than 1 GB of VRAM. The FirePro branding may also matter for professional software certification, but the database does not record any professional application benchmarks to confirm a real-world advantage.

The recorded data favors the R7 M260X in the only direct comparison available. The FirePro W4190M's specification advantages are real but unproven in benchmark performance. For most use cases, the R7 M260X is the safer pick. For niche workloads that stress fill rate or memory capacity, the FirePro W4190M has a plausible case, but the benchmark evidence does not support it.