AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M Comparison

The Verdict

The AMD FirePro W4190M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions, but they target distinctly different workloads and user expectations based on the recorded benchmark data. The database shows a single OpenCL benchmark result for each part, and in that test the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505 against the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M’s 3740, a 20.5% advantage for the AMD part. That is a substantial margin, and it places the FirePro W4190M at the 26th percentile among all GPUs in the database, while the GeForce GT 635M sits at the 22nd percentile.

For users who prioritize compute throughput in OpenCL-accelerated applications, the AMD FirePro W4190M is the clear choice. Its score puts it essentially level with the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (which averages 4499, a 0.1% difference) and only 1.2% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530. Meanwhile, the GeForce GT 635M’s score is closest to the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (3718, 0.6% ahead) and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M (3717, 0.6% ahead). The NVIDIA part is also 1.4% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 710, which shows that even integrated graphics from a later generation can match or exceed its compute output.

The verdict is straightforward: if the workload is OpenCL compute, the AMD FirePro W4190M wins decisively. If the workload is legacy gaming or basic mobile acceleration, the GeForce GT 635M may still be acceptable, but the data does not favor it in raw compute. The FirePro’s architecture, despite being from 2015 versus the GeForce’s 2012 release, delivers a higher pixel rate, texture rate, and floating-point throughput. There are no gaming-specific benchmarks in the database, so any claims about gaming performance must be tempered by the fact that only OpenCL scores are recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and process nodes. The AMD FirePro W4190M uses the GCN 1.0 architecture on a 28 nm process, fabricated by TSMC. The chip, codenamed Opal, contains 950 million transistors on a die size of 77 mm², which yields a transistor density of 12.3 million transistors per square millimeter. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M uses the Fermi architecture on a 40 nm process, also from TSMC. Its chip, GF108, packs 585 million transistors on a larger 116 mm² die, giving a transistor density of only 5.0 million per square millimeter. The process node difference is significant: the AMD part is nearly two process generations ahead, which explains its higher density despite fewer absolute transistors.

The compute resources differ sharply. The FirePro W4190M has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units. The GeForce GT 635M has 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. That is a 4x difference in shading units, a 1.5x difference in TMUs, and a 2x difference in ROPs. These raw counts translate directly to the recorded throughput figures: the FirePro achieves 7.200 GPixel/s pixel rate and 21.60 GTexel/s texture rate, while the GeForce manages 1.900 GPixel/s and 7.600 GTexel/s respectively. The FirePro’s FP32 throughput is 691.2 GFLOPS versus the GeForce’s 182.4 GFLOPS, a 3.8x gap.

Memory architecture also diverges. Both parts have 2 GB of memory on a 128-bit bus, but the FirePro uses GDDR5 at an effective 4 Gbps, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The GeForce uses DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective, yielding only 28.80 GB/s. That is a 2.2x bandwidth advantage for the AMD part, which is critical for compute workloads that stream data. The GeForce GT 635M does carry a 35 W TDP, while the FirePro’s TDP is not recorded in the database, so direct power comparison is not possible.

API support also differs. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GeForce supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but has no Vulkan support listed. That means the AMD part has a modern API advantage for applications that rely on Vulkan. The bus interface differs as well: the FirePro uses PCIe 3.0 x8, while the GeForce uses PCIe 2.0 x16. The older PCIe 2.0 standard has lower per-lane bandwidth, but the x16 width may compensate in some scenarios; the database does not record any PCIe-specific benchmarks.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only recorded head-to-head benchmark is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M scores 3740. The delta is 20.5% in favor of the AMD part. That is a decisive margin, not a marginal one. To put it in context, the FirePro’s nearest rivals are all within a 1.6% band: the Radeon R7 M260 at 4499 (0.1% behind), the Intel HD Graphics P530 at 4560 (1.2% ahead), the Radeon RX 560 at 4569 (1.4% ahead), and the Radeon R5 M230 at 4577 (1.6% ahead). The FirePro sits right in that cluster, slightly ahead of the R7 M260 and slightly behind the Intel integrated part. That suggests its compute performance is typical of a mid-range mobile GPU of its era.

The GeForce GT 635M’s nearest rivals tell a different story. Its 3740 score is 0.6% ahead of the Quadro 3000M (3718) and the GT 740M (3717), 1.2% ahead of the GeForce 825M (3694), and 1.4% behind the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792). So the GeForce is clustered with other older NVIDIA parts, and it is beaten by a modern Intel integrated GPU. The 20.5% gap between the FirePro and the GeForce is larger than any gap within either part’s nearest-rival cluster. That is a meaningful separation: the FirePro is not just marginally faster, it is in a different performance tier for OpenCL compute.

Looking at the architecture behind these scores, the FirePro’s advantage comes from several factors. The 4x shading unit count gives it more parallel execution paths. The GDDR5 memory provides more than double the bandwidth, which helps memory-bound kernels. The 28 nm process allows higher clock efficiency; the FirePro runs at a base of 825 MHz and a boost of 900 MHz, while the GeForce’s core clocks are not recorded. The higher pixel and texture rates (7.2 versus 1.9 GPixel/s, 21.6 versus 7.6 GTexel/s) further confirm that the FirePro has more raw throughput in every measured category.

The wins tally reflects this: the AMD part wins 1 head-to-head test, the NVIDIA part wins 0. There is no recorded test where the GeForce GT 635M comes out ahead. That does not mean the GeForce has no use case; its lower power envelope (35 W TDP) and older architecture may be adequate for basic display output or legacy applications. But in the only compute benchmark the database contains, the FirePro is unambiguously superior.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification field in the database. The process node is 28 nm for AMD versus 40 nm for NVIDIA. Transistor count is 950 million versus 585 million. Die size is 77 mm² versus 116 mm². Transistor density is 12.3 million per mm² versus 5.0 million per mm². The FirePro has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz, while the GeForce has no recorded base or boost clock. Memory clock differs: the FirePro runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, the GeForce at 900 MHz with 1800 Mbps effective.

Memory type is GDDR5 for the FirePro versus DDR3 for the GeForce. Bandwidth is 64.00 GB/s versus 28.80 GB/s. Shading units are 384 versus 96. TMUs are 24 versus 16. ROPs are 8 versus 4. Pixel rate is 7.200 GPixel/s versus 1.900 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 21.60 GTexel/s versus 7.600 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 691.2 GFLOPS versus 182.4 GFLOPS. The GeForce has a TDP of 35 W, while the FirePro’s TDP is not recorded. Slot width is MXM Module for the FirePro versus IGP for the GeForce. Bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x8 versus PCIe 2.0 x16.

API support differs: the FirePro lists DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170; the GeForce lists DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, with no Vulkan. Release dates are 2015-11-11 for the FirePro and 2012-03-21 for the GeForce. The predecessor and successor names differ: the FirePro’s predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile, while the GeForce’s predecessor is GeForce 500M and its successor is GeForce 700M. Neither part has a recorded launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life. Both have 2 GB memory and a 128-bit bus width. Both have no power connectors and use portable-device-dependent display outputs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505, which is 20.5% higher than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M’s 3740.

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

A: The FirePro 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 memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: Both have 2 GB on a 128-bit bus, but the FirePro uses GDDR5 at 4 Gbps effective with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the GeForce uses DDR3 at 1800 Mbps effective with 28.80 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the GeForce GT 635M support Vulkan?

A: No, the database lists no Vulkan support for the GeForce GT 635M. It supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6. The FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170.

Q: What are the pixel and texture rates for the two GPUs?

A: The FirePro achieves 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s. The GeForce achieves 1.900 GPixel/s and 7.600 GTexel/s.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller die size?

A: The FirePro has a 77 mm² die, compared to the GeForce’s 116 mm². The FirePro also has a higher transistor density at 12.3 million per mm² versus 5.0 million per mm².