AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA GeForce 940M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded in the database is Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the NVIDIA GeForce 940M scores 6018 points, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505 points. This gives the NVIDIA part a 25.1% advantage, a decisive margin in raw compute throughput. The delta is large enough that it will show up in any OpenCL-heavy workload, from physics simulation to GPU-accelerated video processing.

To put that score in context, the FirePro W4190M sits at the 26th percentile among all GPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals are tightly clustered: the AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 4499 points (0.1% behind), the Intel HD Graphics P530 scores 4560 points (1.2% ahead), the AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 4569 points (1.4% ahead), and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577 points (1.6% ahead). The FirePro is effectively in a dead heat with those four parts, all separated by less than 2%. That clustering suggests the W4190M is positioned at a common performance tier for low-power mobile GPUs of its era, neither a standout nor a laggard among its immediate peers.

The GeForce 940M, by contrast, sits at the 31st percentile, but its nearest rivals are a different story. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980M scores 5308 points (0.4% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce 930A scores 5317 points (0.6% ahead), the NVIDIA GeForce 840M scores 5322 points (0.7% ahead), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M scores 5236 points (0.9% behind). The 940M's average benchmark score of 5284 points lands it in a bracket with much more powerful desktop-replacement parts like the GTX 980M, which is notable for a chip marketed as an entry-level mobile solution. The 940M also records a Geekbench Vulkan score of 4549 points, a result with no direct counterpart in the FirePro's records.

The head-to-head data shows a single clear outcome: the GeForce 940M wins the only shared test, and it wins by a wide margin. There are no benchmark categories in which the FirePro W4190M comes out ahead. The database records zero wins for the AMD part and one win for the NVIDIA part. That is the entire competitive picture from a pure performance standpoint.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families and different generations. The AMD FirePro W4190M is built on GCN 1.0, using the Opal chip, and belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M uses the Maxwell architecture with the GM107 chip, part of the GeForce 900M generation. Both are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC, so node advantages do not factor into the comparison. The transistor counts differ substantially: the FirePro packs 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, while the GeForce packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die. Transistor density is nearly identical at 12.3M per mm² for AMD and 12.6M per mm² for NVIDIA, which makes sense given the shared process node.

The compute resources tell a clear story. The FirePro W4190M has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The GeForce 940M has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. In every one of those counts, the NVIDIA chip has more hardware. That explains the pixel rate and texture rate gaps: the FirePro delivers 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s, while the GeForce delivers 17.57 GPixel/s and 35.14 GTexel/s. The GeForce more than doubles the fillrate ceiling on the pixel side and leads by over 60% on texture throughput. FP32 compute also favors NVIDIA: 1,124.4 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS, a lead of roughly 63%. Neither part supports dedicated ray tracing cores or tensor cores, and neither has recorded FP16 performance in the database.

Clock speeds are also in NVIDIA's favor. The FirePro has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz. The GeForce runs at 1020 MHz base and 1098 MHz boost. Higher clocks plus more shading units is a straightforward recipe for the benchmark gap observed. Memory architecture diverges sharply. The FirePro uses 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce uses 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64 bit bus, yielding only 14.40 GB/s. This is a significant trade-off: NVIDIA's compute lead comes despite a memory bandwidth disadvantage of roughly 4.4 to 1. The FirePro's wider bus and GDDR5 memory are clearly aimed at bandwidth-sensitive tasks, while the GeForce leans on raw shader throughput.

API support differs in one notable way. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the GeForce supports DirectX 12 (11_0). OpenGL is 4.6 for both. Vulkan support is recorded as 1.2.170 for AMD and 1.4 for NVIDIA, so the GeForce has a newer Vulkan revision in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The GeForce 940M wins the only direct benchmark comparison, and it wins decisively. In Geekbench OpenCL, its 6018 points versus 4505 points represents a 25.1% lead. For any workload that scales with FP32 compute, shader count, or fillrate, the GeForce is the stronger choice. The 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs give it a structural advantage in tasks like 3D rendering, image processing filters, and general GPU compute. The higher base and boost clocks reinforce that advantage. If a user is running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the data says the GeForce will finish the job faster.

The FirePro W4190M does not win any recorded benchmark, but that does not mean it has no role. Its memory subsystem is the one area where it clearly outspecs the GeForce. The 128 bit bus and GDDR5 memory deliver 64.00 GB/s, more than four times the GeForce's 14.40 GB/s. Bandwidth-bound workloads, such as large data transfers, texture streaming, or certain types of compute kernels that repeatedly access large buffers, could behave differently than raw FP32 numbers suggest. The database does not include a benchmark that isolates memory bandwidth, so this remains an inference from the specification differences rather than a measured result.

The FirePro also carries the older GCN 1.0 architecture, which in practice has different driver characteristics than Maxwell, though the database does not record driver-level behavior. Its DirectX 12 (11_1) support is one minor revision ahead of the GeForce's DirectX 12 (11_0), which could matter for specific feature-level requirements in legacy applications. The FirePro's 26th percentile ranking and its tight clustering with parts like the Radeon R7 M260 and Intel HD Graphics P530 indicate it belongs to a performance class where small percentage differences separate competitors. The GeForce's 31st percentile and its proximity to the GTX 980M suggest it punches above its nominal tier.

For use-case planning, the GeForce is the pick for compute-heavy tasks and any application that uses OpenCL or Vulkan. The FirePro, with its wider memory bus, may be preferable in scenarios where memory bandwidth is the limiting factor, but no measured benchmark in the database confirms that advantage.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in nearly every specification category. The FirePro W4190M uses the Opal chip on GCN 1.0, while the GeForce 940M uses GM107 on Maxwell. Transistor count is 950 million versus 1,870 million, and die size is 77 mm² versus 148 mm². Transistor density is close: 12.3M per mm² versus 12.6M per mm².

Clock speeds: the FirePro runs at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost, the GeForce at 1020 MHz base and 1098 MHz boost. Memory clocks are 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for AMD and 900 MHz (1800 Mbps effective) for NVIDIA. Memory configuration: both have 2 GB, but AMD uses GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while NVIDIA uses DDR3 on a 64 bit bus with 14.40 GB/s bandwidth.

Compute units: AMD has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. NVIDIA has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 16 ROPs. Pixel rate is 7.200 GPixel/s versus 17.57 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 21.60 GTexel/s versus 35.14 GTexel/s. FP32 is 691.2 GFLOPS versus 1,124.4 GFLOPS. TDP is not recorded for the FirePro, but the GeForce is listed at 75 W. Both use MXM modules with no power connectors, and both have display outputs marked as portable device dependent. The FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GeForce uses MXM-B (3.0). Release dates differ: the FirePro launched on November 11, 2015, and the GeForce launched on March 12, 2015. Both are end-of-life. The FirePro's predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile. The GeForce's predecessor is GeForce 800M and its successor is GeForce 10 Mobile.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940M scores 6018 points in Geekbench OpenCL, compared to 4505 points for the AMD FirePro W4190M, a 25.1% lead.

Q: Does the FirePro W4190M win any benchmark?

A: No. The database records zero benchmark wins for the FirePro and one win for the GeForce 940M.

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

A: The FirePro is within 1.6% of the AMD Radeon R7 M260, Intel HD Graphics P530, AMD Radeon RX 560, and AMD Radeon R5 M230. The GeForce is within 0.9% of the GTX 980M, GeForce 930A, GeForce 840M, and GTX 760M.

Q: Which GPU has more memory bandwidth?

A: The FirePro W4190M, with 64.00 GB/s from GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus. The GeForce 940M has 14.40 GB/s from DDR3 on a 64 bit bus.

Q: What are the shading unit counts?

A: The FirePro has 384 shading units, while the GeForce 940M has 512 shading units.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but with different feature levels. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), and the GeForce supports DirectX 12 (11_0).

The Verdict

The data points in one direction. The NVIDIA GeForce 940M is the faster GPU in the only recorded benchmark, with a 25.1% lead in Geekbench OpenCL. It has more shading units, more TMUs, more ROPs, higher clocks, and nearly double the FP32 throughput. Its 31st percentile ranking and proximity to the GTX 980M in the nearest rivals list suggest it outperforms its entry-level positioning. Anyone choosing between these two for general compute, 3D work, or Vulkan applications should pick the GeForce 940M based on the measured results.

The AMD FirePro W4190M is not without a rationale. Its 64.00 GB/s memory bandwidth, delivered through GDDR5 on a 128 bit bus, is a genuine specification advantage over the GeForce's 14.40 GB/s. For workloads that are constrained by memory bandwidth rather than shader throughput, the FirePro may hold up better than its OpenCL score implies. The database does not include a benchmark that isolates this factor, so that remains an unverified possibility rather than a demonstrated strength. The FirePro's 26th percentile and its tight clustering with integrated and low-end discrete parts also indicate it belongs to a lower performance tier overall.

The practical recommendation: if the workload is known to be compute-bound, the GeForce 940M is the clear choice. If the workload is heavily bandwidth-bound and the application is known to favor AMD's GCN architecture, the FirePro W4190M is worth consideration, but without benchmark evidence of that advantage. For a straightforward purchase decision based on recorded data, the GeForce 940M wins.