AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher OpenCL benchmark score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M scores 4282. The AMD part wins by 5.2%.

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

A: The FirePro W4190M sits within 1.6% of four rivals, ranging from the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499, +0.1% for AMD) to the AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577, -1.6% for AMD). The GTX 460M is within 1.2% of its rivals, including the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335, -1.2%) and the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241, +1.0%).

Q: What are the memory specifications of each card?

A: The FirePro W4190M has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The GTX 460M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus with 60.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel fill rate?

A: The FirePro W4190M achieves 7.200 GPixel/s, which is 33.3% higher than the GTX 460M's 5.400 GPixel/s. Both cards have identical texture rates of 21.60 GTexel/s.

Q: What process nodes are used by these two chips?

A: The FirePro W4190M uses a 28 nm process with 950 million transistors on a 77 mm² die. The GTX 460M uses a 40 nm process with 1,170 million transistors on a 238 mm² die.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro W4190M is built on the GCN 1.0 architecture, specifically the Opal chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M uses the Fermi architecture with the GF106 chip. This fundamental difference shapes nearly every aspect of their performance profiles. The FirePro W4190M belongs to the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation and was released on 2015-11-11, while the GTX 460M is part of the GeForce 400M generation with a release date of 2010-09-02. The five-year gap explains much of the architectural evolution between them.

The manufacturing process differs significantly: the FirePro W4190M is fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm node, whereas the GTX 460M uses TSMC's older 40 nm node. This process advantage allows the AMD chip to pack 950 million transistors into a 77 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 12.3M per mm². The NVIDIA chip, by contrast, uses 1,170 million transistors across a much larger 238 mm² die, giving it a density of just 4.9M per mm². The FirePro W4190M achieves more than double the transistor density, which is a direct consequence of the newer manufacturing process.

Shader configuration also differs substantially. The FirePro W4190M has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The GTX 460M has 192 shading units, 32 TMUs, and 24 ROPs. This means the NVIDIA card has more texture units and ROPs, but far fewer shading units. The AMD card compensates with higher clock speeds: 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost, while the GTX 460M's core clocks are not specified in the data. The FirePro W4190M's memory runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective), compared to the GTX 460M's 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective).

API support reveals another generational divide. The FirePro W4190M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The GTX 460M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but has no Vulkan support listed. This makes the AMD card more future-proof for modern applications that leverage Vulkan. The FirePro W4190M also uses a PCIe 3.0 x8 interface, while the GTX 460M uses the older PCIe 2.0 x16 standard. Both cards are MXM modules with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs.

Where Each One Wins

The FirePro W4190M wins the only direct head-to-head benchmark available: Geekbench OpenCL, with a score of 4505 against the GTX 460M's 4282. This 5.2% advantage comes despite the NVIDIA card having more texture units and ROPs. The AMD card's higher shading unit count (384 vs 192) and significantly higher memory clock (1000 MHz vs 625 MHz) likely contribute to this lead.

The FirePro W4190M also wins in pixel fill rate, delivering 7.200 GPixel/s compared to the GTX 460M's 5.400 GPixel/s. This advantage could translate to better performance in fill-rate-bound scenarios such as high-resolution rendering with simple shaders. The AMD card's FP32 throughput of 691.2 GFLOPS also exceeds the GTX 460M's 518.4 GFLOPS by 33.3%, which matters for compute workloads.

The GTX 460M, despite losing the overall benchmark, has structural advantages that could favor certain workloads. Its 24 ROPs triple the FirePro W4190M's 8 ROPs, which could improve performance in memory-heavy pixel operations. Its 192-bit memory bus is wider than the AMD card's 128-bit bus, though the FirePro W4190M's higher memory clock compensates, resulting in 64.00 GB/s versus 60.00 GB/s bandwidth. The NVIDIA card also has 32 TMUs against the AMD card's 24, yet both achieve the same 21.60 GTexel/s texture rate.

For users prioritizing raw compute, the FirePro W4190M is the clear choice based on the data. For those who need the ROP-heavy pixel processing or wider memory bus, the GTX 460M might hold value, but the benchmark data does not show any scenario where the NVIDIA card wins.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every specification category. The FirePro W4190M uses a 28 nm process, while the GTX 460M uses 40 nm. Transistor counts are 950 million versus 1,170 million, and die sizes are 77 mm² versus 238 mm². The resulting transistor densities are 12.3M per mm² for AMD and 4.9M per mm² for NVIDIA.

Clock speeds show the FirePro W4190M with a 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost; the GTX 460M has no base or boost clock listed. Memory clocks are 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for AMD versus 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) for NVIDIA. Memory capacity is 2 GB versus 1536 MB, with bus widths of 128 bit versus 192 bit. Bandwidth slightly favors AMD at 64.00 GB/s versus 60.00 GB/s.

Shader resources differ sharply: 384 shading units versus 192, 24 TMUs versus 32, and 8 ROPs versus 24. Pixel rates are 7.200 GPixel/s versus 5.400 GPixel/s, while texture rates are identical at 21.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 691.2 GFLOPS versus 518.4 GFLOPS. The GTX 460M has a 50 W TDP; the FirePro W4190M's TDP is not listed.

Bus interfaces differ: PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD versus PCIe 2.0 x16 for NVIDIA. API support shows AMD with DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170; NVIDIA with DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6 but no Vulkan. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Release dates are 2015-11-11 for AMD and 2010-09-02 for NVIDIA.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole head-to-head benchmark is Geekbench OpenCL, where the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505 against the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M's 4282. The delta is 5.2% in AMD's favor. This is the most direct comparison available, and it shows a clear winner.

Looking at related metrics explains this result. The FirePro W4190M's FP32 throughput of 691.2 GFLOPS is 33.3% higher than the GTX 460M's 518.4 GFLOPS. This compute advantage is substantial and likely drives the OpenCL score. The AMD card's pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s also beats the NVIDIA part's 5.400 GPixel/s by a similar margin. Both cards have identical texture rates at 21.60 GTexel/s, which means texture-bound workloads should perform similarly.

Memory bandwidth slightly favors AMD: 64.00 GB/s versus 60.00 GB/s, a 6.7% advantage. This is notable because the NVIDIA card has a wider 192-bit bus, but the AMD card's faster memory clock (1000 MHz vs 625 MHz) overcomes that width disadvantage. The FirePro W4190M also has double the shading units (384 vs 192), which directly feeds its compute lead.

The percentile rankings are close: the FirePro W4190M sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, while the GTX 460M sits at the 25th percentile. Both are near the bottom quartile, indicating entry-level positioning. The nearest rival data reinforces this—the AMD card's closest competitor is the AMD Radeon R7 M260 at 4499 (0.1% behind), while the GTX 460M's closest is the AMD Radeon Vega 3 at 4268 (0.3% behind). Neither card is far from a broad cluster of similar-performance GPUs.

The Verdict

The data points to the AMD FirePro W4190M as the stronger GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 5.2%, has 33.3% higher FP32 compute, 33.3% higher pixel rate, and 6.7% more memory bandwidth. Its 2 GB memory capacity also exceeds the GTX 460M's 1536 MB, and its newer 28 nm process with higher transistor density indicates a more modern design.

The GTX 460M does have advantages in ROP count (24 vs 8), TMU count (32 vs 24), and memory bus width (192 bit vs 128 bit), but these do not translate into a benchmark win. Its texture rate matches the AMD card despite more TMUs, and its pixel rate is lower despite triple the ROPs. The NVIDIA card also lacks Vulkan support, which the FirePro W4190M provides at version 1.2.170.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the FirePro W4190M is the better pick for OpenCL compute workloads, which is the only benchmark category measured. Its higher shading unit count and memory clock make it more capable for general-purpose GPU tasks. The GTX 460M's wider memory bus and higher ROP count might theoretically benefit certain pixel-bound operations, but the measured data shows no such win.

The percentile data places both cards in the bottom quartile, so neither is a high-performance part by modern standards. However, within this comparison, the FirePro W4190M's 26th percentile versus the GTX 460M's 25th percentile reflects the AMD card's slight edge. The release date difference—2015 versus 2010—explains why the older NVIDIA part falls behind despite having more transistors and a larger die. The FirePro W4190M's architectural efficiency on the 28 nm process overcomes the GTX 460M's raw resource advantages. Users requiring Vulkan support should definitively choose the AMD card.