AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA GeForce 940MX Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX and AMD FirePro W4190M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but the benchmark data shows a clear overall winner. The GeForce 940MX leads in the only shared performance metric, Geekbench OpenCL, with a 9.6% advantage over the FirePro W4190M, a lead that aligns with its higher placement in the global GPU percentile rankings.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is unambiguous. The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX scores 4939 points, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505 points. This gives the GeForce 940MX a decisive 9.6% performance lead, a margin that places it in a different performance tier in practice.

This 9.6% gap is significant when contextualized against each card's competitive positioning. The GeForce 940MX's average benchmark score of 4844 places it at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4190M's average score of 4505 places it at the 26th percentile. While a two-percentile difference may seem small, the head-to-head delta demonstrates that the GeForce 940MX holds a consistent edge in compute workloads.

The GeForce 940MX's rival chart reinforces its standing. It sits just 0.2% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (4855), 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (4867), and 1% behind the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893). Interestingly, it is 1.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 12 GB (4791) in this specific metric, evidence of the benchmark's focus on compute rather than modern gaming features.

The FirePro W4190M's rival chart paints a different picture. It is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499), but trails the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560) by 1.2%, the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569) by 1.4%, and the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577) by 1.6%. This places the FirePro W4190M at the bottom of its immediate competitive cluster, a position that contrasts sharply with the GeForce 940MX's more favorable standing relative to its own rivals.

In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GeForce 940MX wins the sole benchmark round, resulting in a 1-0 win tally for the NVIDIA part. There are no benchmark categories where the AMD FirePro W4190M emerges victorious.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX is faster, scoring 4939 compared to the AMD FirePro W4190M's 4505, a 9.6% difference.

Q: How do the two GPUs compare in terms of global performance percentile?

A: The GeForce 940MX sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4190M sits at the 26th percentile, indicating the GeForce 940MX has a higher overall ranking.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each card?

A: The GeForce 940MX has an average benchmark score of 4844, whereas the FirePro W4190M has an average score of 4505.

Q: Which GPU has a higher memory bandwidth?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M has a significantly higher memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, compared to the GeForce 940MX's 40.10 GB/s, due to its 128-bit bus versus the GeForce 940MX's 64-bit bus.

Q: What is the difference in shading units?

A: The GeForce 940MX has 512 shading units, while the FirePro W4190M has 384, giving the NVIDIA part a 128-unit advantage in this compute resource.

Q: Which GPU has a newer release date?

A: The GeForce 940MX was released on 2016-06-27, while the FirePro W4190M was released on 2015-11-11, making the GeForce 940MX the newer part by roughly seven months.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The GeForce 940MX uses the NVIDIA GM107 chip based on the Maxwell architecture, while the FirePro W4190M uses the AMD Opal chip based on the GCN 1.0 architecture. Both are manufactured by TSMC on a 28 nm process node, but their transistor budgets differ substantially. The GeForce 940MX packs 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.6M / mm². The FirePro W4190M is a smaller chip, with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die, yielding a density of 12.3M / mm². The GeForce 940MX's larger transistor count and die size suggest a more complex design.

These architectural differences manifest in their compute resources. The GeForce 940MX features 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 8 render output units (ROPs). The FirePro W4190M, by contrast, has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The GeForce 940MX therefore has a clear advantage in shading and texturing throughput, which is reflected in its higher texture rate of 27.55 GTexel/s versus the FirePro W4190M's 21.60 GTexel/s. The FirePro W4190M does have a higher pixel rate at 7.200 GPixel/s, edging out the GeForce 940MX's 6.888 GPixel/s, despite having the same number of ROPs.

Clock speeds also differ. The FirePro W4190M runs at a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz, while the GeForce 940MX runs at a lower base clock of 795 MHz but a boost clock of 861 MHz. The higher clocks on the AMD part do not compensate for its lower shader count, as the GeForce 940MX achieves 881.7 GFLOPS of FP32 compute versus the FirePro W4190M's 691.2 GFLOPS.

Memory architecture presents the most significant divergence in favor of the AMD part. The FirePro W4190M uses a 128-bit memory bus with a bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s, while the GeForce 940MX is limited to a 64-bit bus with a bandwidth of 40.10 GB/s. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the FirePro W4190M's memory operates at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), while the GeForce 940MX's memory runs at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective). The wider bus on the AMD part gives it a 59.8% bandwidth advantage, which could be important for memory-intensive workloads.

API support also differs slightly. The GeForce 940MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The FirePro W4190M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and an older Vulkan 1.2.170 specification.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX is the superior performer. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 9.6%, holds a higher global percentile rank (28th vs 26th), and posts a higher average benchmark score (4844 vs 4505). The GeForce 940MX's advantage in shading units (512 vs 384), texture rate (27.55 GTexel/s vs 21.60 GTexel/s), and FP32 compute (881.7 GFLOPS vs 691.2 GFLOPS) solidifies its position as the more capable compute device.

However, the AMD FirePro W4190M is not without its strengths. Its memory subsystem is substantially better, offering 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth on a 128-bit bus versus the GeForce 940MX's 40.10 GB/s on a 64-bit bus. For workloads that are heavily bandwidth-bound, the FirePro W4190M could close the gap or even overtake the GeForce 940MX, despite its lower raw compute throughput.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance in OpenCL-style workloads, the GeForce 940MX is the clear choice. For those whose applications are constrained by memory bandwidth rather than shader throughput, the FirePro W4190M's wider memory interface makes it a more competitive option. The GeForce 940MX also benefits from newer API support, including Vulkan 1.4 versus the FirePro W4190M's Vulkan 1.2.170, which may affect compatibility with newer software titles.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specifications. The GeForce 940MX uses the GM107 chip (Maxwell architecture) with 1,870 million transistors on a 148 mm² die, while the FirePro W4190M uses the Opal chip (GCN 1.0) with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The GeForce 940MX has 512 shading units, 32 TMUs, and a texture rate of 27.55 GTexel/s, versus 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and a texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s for the FirePro W4190M. The GeForce 940MX achieves 881.7 GFLOPS FP32, while the FirePro W4190M achieves 691.2 GFLOPS.

Memory configuration is a major separator: the GeForce 940MX uses a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth, while the FirePro W4190M uses a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory. The GeForce 940MX has a base clock of 795 MHz and boost clock of 861 MHz, whereas the FirePro W4190M has a base clock of 825 MHz and boost clock of 900 MHz. The pixel rate favors the AMD part (7.200 GPixel/s vs 6.888 GPixel/s), but the texture rate and FP32 favor the NVIDIA part.

TDP is listed as 23 W for the GeForce 940MX, while the FirePro W4190M's TDP is not specified. Both use the MXM Module slot width, have no power connectors, and use a PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface. Display outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent" for both. In terms of API support, the GeForce 940MX supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W4190M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Release dates differ, with the GeForce 940MX launching on 2016-06-27 and the FirePro W4190M launching on 2015-11-11.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA GeForce 940MX wins in scenarios that demand raw compute throughput. Its 512 shading units and FP32 output of 881.7 GFLOPS make it the stronger choice for general-purpose compute tasks, such as OpenCL-accelerated applications, image processing, and physics simulations. Its higher texture rate of 27.55 GTexel/s also gives it an edge in texture-heavy workloads. The 9.6% lead in Geekbench OpenCL, the only shared benchmark, confirms this advantage in practice.

The AMD FirePro W4190M wins in memory-bandwidth-sensitive scenarios. Its 128-bit memory bus and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth are substantially superior to the GeForce 940MX's 64-bit bus and 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. In applications that repeatedly access large datasets, such as certain data analytics, video processing, or multi-sample anti-aliasing at high resolutions, the FirePro W4190M's bandwidth advantage could offset its lower compute capability. Its higher pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s also suggests it may handle fill-rate-limited tasks slightly better than the GeForce 940MX.

For software compatibility, the GeForce 940MX's newer Vulkan 1.4 support is a point in its favor, potentially enabling access to newer graphics APIs and features. The FirePro W4190M's DirectX 12 (11_1) support is marginally more advanced than the GeForce 940MX's DirectX 12 (11_0), which could matter for specific legacy applications. Ultimately, the GeForce 940MX is the better all-round performer, while the FirePro W4190M is a niche option for bandwidth-bound use cases.