AMD FirePro W4190M vs Intel UHD Graphics 710 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database contains a single direct comparison between these two mobile graphics solutions: the Geekbench OpenCL test. In that test, the AMD FirePro W4190M records a score of 4505, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 records 3496. The AMD part wins this head-to-head by a margin of 28.9%. This is not a narrow victory; a 28.9% delta in compute-oriented workloads represents a substantial performance gap.

To contextualize the AMD FirePro W4190M score, the data places it at the 26th percentile among all GPUs. Its nearest rivals in the database are the AMD Radeon R7 M260 at 4499 (a 0.1% difference), the Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 (a -1.2% delta), the AMD Radeon RX 560 at 4569 (a -1.4% delta), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 at 4577 (a -1.6% delta). The FirePro W4190M is effectively sandwiched within a narrow performance band, trailing the R5 M230 by only 1.6% while edging out the R7 M260 by a hair. This suggests the W4190M sits exactly at the boundary between entry-level discrete GPUs and older integrated-class solutions.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710, by contrast, sits at the 22nd percentile among all GPUs. Its average benchmark score across the two recorded tests (OpenCL and Vulkan) is 3792. The nearest rivals for the Intel part are the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 at 3823 (a -0.8% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 at 3834 (a -1.1% delta), the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M at 3740 (a +1.4% delta), and the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M at 3718 (a +2.0% delta). The UHD 710 is therefore positioned among older discrete NVIDIA parts from a lower tier, and it manages to outperform the GT 635M and Quadro 3000M by small but positive margins.

Looking strictly at the head-to-head data, the AMD FirePro W4190M is the clear winner in OpenCL compute. The Vulkan score for the UHD 710 (4088) is not directly comparable because no Vulkan result exists for the FirePro W4190M in the database. However, the UHD 710's Vulkan score is higher than its OpenCL score, indicating that the Intel part may be relatively stronger under the Vulkan API than under OpenCL. Even so, the Vulkan score of 4088 still falls below the AMD part's OpenCL score of 4505, so the overall compute advantage remains with the AMD product.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies and manufacturing eras. The AMD FirePro W4190M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The chip, codenamed Opal, contains 950 million transistors on a die size of 77 mm², yielding a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 uses the Generation 12.2 architecture, built on a 10 nm process at Intel. Its chip is based on Alder Lake, though the database records no transistor count, die size, or density for the Intel part.

The compute resources differ substantially. The AMD FirePro W4190M has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The AMD part therefore has three times the shading units and three times the TMUs, while both have the same ROP count. This explains the large OpenCL performance gap, since OpenCL workloads tend to scale with shading unit count and texture throughput.

Clock speeds tell a complementary story. The AMD FirePro W4190M runs at a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 runs at a base clock of 300 MHz and a boost clock of 1300 MHz. The Intel part has a much wider clock range and a higher peak clock, but the AMD part maintains a higher floor. The memory configuration also differs fundamentally: the AMD part uses 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth, while the Intel part uses System Shared memory with a System Shared bus width and System Dependent bandwidth.

The pixel and texture rate figures reflect these differences. The AMD FirePro W4190M delivers 7.200 GPixel/s pixel fill rate and 21.60 GTexel/s texture fill rate. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 delivers 10.40 GPixel/s pixel fill rate and 10.40 GTexel/s texture fill rate. Interestingly, the Intel part has a higher pixel rate despite having fewer shading units, likely due to its higher boost clock. The AMD part has roughly double the texture rate, which aligns with its threefold TMU advantage at a lower clock.

Floating-point performance also favors the AMD part. The FirePro W4190M delivers 691.2 GFLOPS of FP32 compute. The UHD 710 delivers 332.8 GFLOPS of FP32, but also supports FP16 at 665.6 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio. The AMD part does not have a recorded FP16 capability. In pure FP32 terms, the AMD part is roughly 2.1 times faster. The Intel part's FP16 support may be relevant for specific workloads, but the database does not provide an FP16 comparison for the AMD side.

The AMD FirePro W4190M is a discrete mobile module using the MXM form factor with a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) connected via the Ring Bus. The AMD part has no power connectors and no recorded TDP, while the Intel part carries a 15 W TDP. Display outputs for the AMD part are portable device dependent, while the Intel part's outputs are motherboard dependent.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split: the AMD FirePro W4190M wins decisively in raw compute throughput. Its OpenCL score of 4505 beats the Intel UHD Graphics 710's OpenCL score of 3496 by 28.9%. The AMD part also has three times the shading units and TMUs, roughly double the FP32 throughput, and dedicated GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. For any workload that is compute-bound or memory-bandwidth-bound, the AMD part is the stronger choice.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710, however, has its own advantages. It has a higher pixel fill rate at 10.40 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s for the AMD part. It also supports FP16 compute at 665.6 GFLOPS, which the AMD part does not record. The Intel part's Vulkan score of 4088 suggests that its API support may be more modern; it supports DirectX 12 (12_1) and Vulkan 1.4, while the AMD part supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The Intel part also has a lower TDP at 15 W, which matters for power-constrained integrated designs.

The production status for both parts is end-of-life. The AMD part is from the FirePro Mobile generation and was released in 2015. The Intel part is from the HD Graphics (Alder Lake) generation and was released in 2022. The AMD part has a predecessor in FirePro Mobility and a successor in Radeon Pro Mobile. The Intel part has no recorded predecessor or successor.

Strictly from the data, the AMD FirePro W4190M is the pick for compute-heavy tasks that can use its FP32 throughput and dedicated memory. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 is the pick for scenarios where pixel fill rate, FP16 support, or API modernity matter more, and where the 15 W TDP is a constraint. The performance gap in the head-to-head benchmark is too large for the Intel part to be recommended for general compute, but its specific strengths may suit narrower use cases.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts:

• Manufacturer: AMD versus Intel
• Chip: Opal versus Alder Lake
• Architecture: GCN 1.0 versus Generation 12.2
• Generation: FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) versus HD Graphics (Alder Lake)
• Process Node: 28 nm versus 10 nm
• Foundry: TSMC versus Intel
• Transistors: 950 million versus not recorded
• Die Size: 77 mm² versus not recorded
• Transistor Density: 12.3M / mm² versus not recorded
• Base Clock: 825 MHz versus 300 MHz
• Boost Clock: 900 MHz versus 1300 MHz
• Memory Clock: 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) versus System Shared
• Memory Size: 2 GB versus System Shared
• Memory Type: GDDR5 versus System Shared
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit versus System Shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 64.00 GB/s versus System Dependent
• Shading Units: 384 versus 128
• TMUs: 24 versus 8
• Pixel Rate: 7.200 GPixel/s versus 10.40 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 21.60 GTexel/s versus 10.40 GTexel/s
• FP32: 691.2 GFLOPS versus 332.8 GFLOPS
• FP16: not recorded versus 665.6 GFLOPS (2:1)
• TDP: not recorded versus 15 W
• Slot Width: MXM Module versus IGP
• Power Connectors: None versus not recorded
• Bus Interface: PCIe 3.0 x8 versus Ring Bus
• Display Outputs: Portable Device Dependent versus Motherboard Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 (11_1) versus 12 (12_1)
• Vulkan Support: 1.2.170 versus 1.4
• Release Date: 2015-11-11 versus 2022-01-03
• Predecessor: FirePro Mobility versus not recorded
• Successor: Radeon Pro Mobile versus not recorded

The two parts share the same ROP count (8), the same OpenGL support (4.6), and the same production status (end-of-life). Neither part has recorded RT cores, tensor cores, dimensions, or a launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU wins the head-to-head OpenCL benchmark?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M wins the Geekbench OpenCL test with a score of 4505, against 3496 for the Intel UHD Graphics 710. The AMD part leads by 28.9%.

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

A: The FirePro W4190M scores 4505 in OpenCL. It is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499), 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: What is the average benchmark score for the Intel UHD Graphics 710?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has an average benchmark score of 3792, derived from its Geekbench OpenCL score of 3496 and its Geekbench Vulkan score of 4088.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M has 384 shading units, while the Intel UHD Graphics 710 has 128 shading units. The AMD part has three times the shading unit count.

Q: Does the Intel UHD Graphics 710 support FP16 compute?

A: Yes. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 delivers 665.6 GFLOPS of FP16 compute with a 2:1 ratio. The AMD FirePro W4190M has no recorded FP16 capability.

Q: What is the pixel fill rate for each GPU?

A: The Intel UHD Graphics 710 has a higher pixel fill rate at 10.40 GPixel/s, while the AMD FirePro W4190M delivers 7.200 GPixel/s.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4190M wins in compute-heavy scenarios. Its OpenCL score of 4505 is 28.9% higher than the Intel part's 3496. Its FP32 throughput of 691.2 GFLOPS is more than double the Intel part's 332.8 GFLOPS. The dedicated 2 GB GDDR5 memory with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth and a 128-bit bus gives it a major advantage in memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads. The texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s is also more than double the Intel part's 10.40 GTexel/s. For workloads that stress shading units, texture mapping, or memory bandwidth, the AMD part is the clear winner.

The Intel UHD Graphics 710 wins in specific areas. Its pixel fill rate of 10.40 GPixel/s exceeds the AMD part's 7.200 GPixel/s by roughly 44%. Its FP16 capability at 665.6 GFLOPS gives it an advantage in workloads that can use reduced precision. Its Vulkan support is newer (1.4 versus 1.2.170), and its DirectX 12 (12_1) support is higher than the AMD part's DirectX 12 (11_1). The Intel part's Vulkan score of 4088, while not directly comparable to the AMD OpenCL score, suggests that API-optimized workloads may perform relatively better on the Intel part. The 15 W TDP also makes it more suitable for power-constrained integrated environments.

The use-case split is therefore clean: choose the AMD FirePro W4190M for compute throughput, texture-heavy rendering, and workloads that benefit from dedicated VRAM. Choose the Intel UHD Graphics 710 for fill-rate-bound tasks, FP16 compute, modern API features, and low-power integrated designs. The overall benchmark record favors the AMD part, but the Intel part has enough distinct strengths to justify consideration in narrow scenarios.