AMD FirePro W4190M vs AMD Radeon R7 M265 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the AMD Radeon R7 M265 and AMD FirePro W4190M compare in raw OpenCL performance?

A: The Radeon R7 M265 scores 4929 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the FirePro W4190M scores 4505. That gives the R7 M265 a 9.4% lead over the FirePro W4190M in the only head-to-head benchmark recorded.

Q: Are these two GPUs built on the same underlying architecture?

A: Yes. Both use the Opal chip, the GCN 1.0 architecture, a 28 nm process from TSMC, 950 million transistors, and a 77 mm² die size. Their shading units, texture units, and ROPs are also identical at 384, 24, and 8 respectively.

Q: What is the main difference in memory technology between them?

A: The Radeon R7 M265 uses 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 28.80 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W4190M also has 2 GB and a 128-bit bus, but uses GDDR5 memory, more than doubling bandwidth to 64.00 GB/s.

Q: Do their clock speeds differ?

A: Yes. The R7 M265 runs at a 725 MHz base and 825 MHz boost. The FirePro W4190M runs higher at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for the R7 M265 versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the FirePro W4190M.

Q: Which GPU has a better percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The Radeon R7 M265 sits at the 29th percentile, while the FirePro W4190M is at the 26th percentile. This indicates the R7 M265 scores higher relative to the full database of GPUs.

Q: What is the release timeline difference?

A: The Radeon R7 M265 was released on 2014-01-08, while the FirePro W4190M came later on 2015-11-11. Both are now end-of-life products, with the R7 M265 succeeding the Solar System generation and preceding Polaris Mobile, while the FirePro W4190M follows FirePro Mobility and precedes Radeon Pro Mobile.

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs share the same foundational silicon: the Opal chip built on GCN 1.0, fabricated by TSMC at 28 nm. The transistor count is identical at 950 million, and the die size is the same 77 mm². This results in an identical transistor density of 12.3M / mm². The compute core configuration is also unchanged: 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 raster output units. Neither GPU supports hardware ray tracing or tensor cores, as those fields are absent.

The key architectural divergence lies in clock speeds and memory subsystem. The FirePro W4190M operates at higher clocks: 825 MHz base versus 725 MHz, and 900 MHz boost versus 825 MHz. This directly lifts its pixel rate to 7.200 GPixel/s versus 6.600 GPixel/s, and its texture rate to 21.60 GTexel/s versus 19.80 GTexel/s. FP32 compute scales accordingly, with the FirePro delivering 691.2 GFLOPS versus 633.6 GFLOPS for the R7 M265.

Memory is where the two diverge most sharply. The R7 M265 uses DDR3 at 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective), yielding 28.80 GB/s over a 128-bit bus. The FirePro W4190M uses GDDR5 at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), yielding 64.00 GB/s over the same 128-bit bus. This is a 2.22x bandwidth advantage for the FirePro, which can matter in memory-bound workloads despite the R7 M265’s higher overall benchmark score.

Other differences are physical and interface-related. The FirePro W4190M is an MXM Module with no power connectors and display outputs described as “Portable Device Dependent.” The R7 M265 has no recorded slot width, power connectors, or display outputs in the database. Both use PCIe 3.0 x8, support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The R7 M265 belongs to the Gem System (R7 M200) generation, while the FirePro W4190M belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, and it favors the Radeon R7 M265. The R7 M265 scores 4929, while the FirePro W4190M scores 4505. That is a 9.4% delta in favor of the R7 M265. In terms of percentile placement, the R7 M265 ranks at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4190M sits at the 26th percentile. This 3-percentile gap reflects the benchmark difference.

Looking at nearest rivals for context, the R7 M265’s 4929 score is virtually tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931, delta 0%) and slightly ahead of the AMD FirePro W5130M (4904, delta 0.5%). It also edges out the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901, delta 0.6%) and the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893, delta 0.7%). This places the R7 M265 in a tight cluster of GPUs scoring around 4900.

The FirePro W4190M’s 4505 score is close to the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499, delta 0.1%), but it trails the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, delta -1.2%), the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569, delta -1.4%), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577, delta -1.6%). This means the FirePro W4190M sits at the lower end of its immediate competitive set, despite its faster memory and higher clocks.

The data suggests a curious inversion: the FirePro W4190M has superior theoretical throughput (higher clocks, higher FP32, higher pixel/texture rates, and much higher memory bandwidth), yet it scores 9.4% lower in OpenCL. This implies that the R7 M265’s advantage may come from driver optimizations, thermal behavior, or the specific workload characteristics of Geekbench OpenCL, which does not always reward raw bandwidth or clock speed proportionally.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the AMD Radeon R7 M265 is the stronger performer in OpenCL compute workloads. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 9.4% and holds a higher percentile ranking (29th vs 26th). Users prioritizing raw Geekbench OpenCL scores should select the R7 M265.

However, the FirePro W4190M is not without merit. Its GDDR5 memory provides 64.00 GB/s bandwidth versus 28.80 GB/s, which is a substantial advantage for memory-intensive tasks. Its higher clock speeds (825/900 MHz vs 725/825 MHz) yield higher pixel rate, texture rate, and FP32 compute. In workloads that scale with bandwidth or shader clock rather than the specific OpenCL test used here, the FirePro W4190M could perform relatively better.

The release timeline is also a factor. The R7 M265 came out in 2014, while the FirePro W4190M arrived in 2015. The FirePro is the newer design, yet it scores lower in the database’s benchmark. This suggests that newer hardware does not automatically translate to higher OpenCL scores in this pairing.

For a neutral recommendation: if the task is general-purpose GPU compute as measured by Geekbench OpenCL, the R7 M265 is the clear choice. If the task involves heavy memory traffic or relies on shader throughput, the FirePro W4190M’s specifications point to potential advantages, though those are not reflected in the sole recorded benchmark.

Specification Differences

| Field | AMD Radeon R7 M265 | AMD FirePro W4190M |

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

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

| Base Clock | 725 MHz | 825 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 825 MHz | 900 MHz |

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

| Memory Type | DDR3 | GDDR5 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 28.80 GB/s | 64.00 GB/s |

| Pixel Rate | 6.600 GPixel/s | 7.200 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 19.80 GTexel/s | 21.60 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 633.6 GFLOPS | 691.2 GFLOPS |

| Slot Width | Not recorded | MXM Module |

| Power Connectors | Not recorded | None |

| Display Outputs | Not recorded | Portable Device Dependent |

| Predecessor | Solar System | FirePro Mobility |

| Successor | Polaris Mobile | Radeon Pro Mobile |

| Release Date | 2014-01-08 | 2015-11-11 |

| Geekbench OpenCL | 4929 | 4505 |

| Percentile vs All GPUs | 29 | 26 |

All other fields are identical: chip (Opal), architecture (GCN 1.0), process (28 nm), foundry (TSMC), transistors (950 million), die size (77 mm²), transistor density (12.3M / mm²), memory size (2 GB), bus width (128 bit), shading units (384), TMUs (24), ROPs (8), bus interface (PCIe 3.0 x8), DirectX (12 (11_1)), OpenGL (4.6), Vulkan (1.2.170), production status (End-of-life), and launch MSRP (not recorded).

Where Each One Wins

AMD Radeon R7 M265 wins in overall OpenCL performance. Its Geekbench score of 4929 surpasses the FirePro W4190M’s 4505 by 9.4%. It also holds a higher percentile ranking (29th vs 26th), meaning it outperforms a larger fraction of the GPU database. In the nearest rival comparison, the R7 M265 is essentially tied with the R7 M360 (4931) and ahead of the FirePro W5130M (4904), whereas the FirePro W4190M trails several rivals including the Intel HD Graphics P530 and AMD Radeon RX 560.

AMD FirePro W4190M wins in theoretical compute and memory throughput. Its boost clock of 900 MHz versus 825 MHz, and base clock of 825 MHz versus 725 MHz, give it higher pixel rate (7.200 vs 6.600 GPixel/s), texture rate (21.60 vs 19.80 GTexel/s), and FP32 (691.2 vs 633.6 GFLOPS). Its GDDR5 memory at 64.00 GB/s is more than double the R7 M265’s 28.80 GB/s, which could be decisive in bandwidth-hungry applications like large texture loads or compute kernels that stream data. The FirePro also has a later release date (2015 vs 2014), suggesting a longer driver support window during its active life.

Use-case split: For general OpenCL compute as measured by the database, choose the R7 M265. For workloads that push memory bandwidth or benefit from higher shader clocks, the FirePro W4190M’s specifications make it the more capable candidate on paper, even though its benchmark score is lower. The data does not resolve this tension; it only records a single 9.4% victory for the R7 M265.