AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M and AMD FirePro W4190M are both end-of-life mobile graphics modules, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies and eras. Based on the available benchmark data, the GTX 560M is the outright performance winner, but the FirePro W4190M counters with architectural efficiency and modern API support. The GeForce GTX 560M leads the sole head-to-head benchmark by 7.8%, a margin that reflects its raw compute advantage, while the FirePro W4190M offers features like Vulkan support that the older NVIDIA part simply cannot match.

Where Each One Wins

The performance split is clear: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M wins the only benchmark recorded in the head-to-head comparison. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the GTX 560M scores 4855 against the AMD FirePro W4190M’s 4505, a 7.8% advantage. This makes the NVIDIA part the choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput in OpenCL workloads, as its 595.2 GFLOPS of FP32 performance outpaces the AMD’s 691.2 GFLOPS figure by a significant margin — wait, that data shows the AMD actually has higher theoretical FP32, yet it loses in the actual benchmark. The discrepancy suggests the GTX 560M’s Fermi architecture extracts better real-world efficiency from its resources than the FirePro’s GCN design in this specific test.

The AMD FirePro W4190M, however, wins in areas that do not show up in a single compute benchmark. It provides a more modern feature set, including Vulkan API support at version 1.2.170, which the GTX 560M lacks entirely. The FirePro also offers DirectX 12 (11_1) support versus the GTX 560M’s DirectX 12 (11_0). For software developers or users running applications that leverage Vulkan, the AMD part is the only viable option between the two. Its 2 GB memory capacity also doubles the GTX 560M’s 1536 MB, which matters for texture-heavy workloads that exceed the NVIDIA card’s frame buffer.

The percentile rankings reinforce this split: the GTX 560M sits at the 28th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4190M sits at the 26th. That two-point gap is small, but it aligns with the 7.8% benchmark delta. In essence, the GTX 560M wins on measured performance, while the FirePro W4190M wins on architectural longevity and API compatibility.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from opposite ends of the design spectrum. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M uses the GF116 chip based on Fermi 2.0 architecture, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 238 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter. The AMD FirePro W4190M uses the Opal chip with GCN 1.0 architecture, also built by TSMC but on a newer 28 nm process. It contains 950 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, achieving a far higher transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter.

The core configurations differ dramatically. The GTX 560M has 192 shading units, 32 texture mapping units (TMUs), and 24 raster operation pipelines (ROPs). The FirePro W4190M counters with 384 shading units — exactly double — but only 24 TMUs and 8 ROPs. This explains the benchmark outcome: the NVIDIA part’s higher TMU and ROP counts help it sustain throughput in OpenCL, despite having half the shaders. The GTX 560M’s pixel rate is 6.200 GPixel/s, while the FirePro’s is 7.200 GPixel/s, yet the texture rate favors NVIDIA at 24.80 GTexel/s versus AMD’s 21.60 GTexel/s.

Clock speeds also tell a story. The GTX 560M has no listed base or boost clock, with only its memory speed specified at 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective). The FirePro W4190M has a base clock of 825 MHz and a boost clock of 900 MHz, with memory at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective). The AMD’s higher clocks and shader count suggest it should win compute benchmarks, but the data shows otherwise, indicating that Fermi 2.0’s architecture is more efficient per clock for this workload.

Memory subsystems differ in width and capacity. The GTX 560M uses a 192-bit bus with 1536 MB of GDDR5, delivering 60.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W4190M uses a narrower 128-bit bus but compensates with 2 GB of GDDR5, achieving 64.00 GB/s. The AMD part has slightly more bandwidth and significantly more capacity, which helps in texture-heavy scenes but did not translate to a win in the OpenCL test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and it yields a decisive result. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M scores 4855, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505. The delta is 7.8% in favor of NVIDIA. This is the single most important performance metric between these two cards, and it shows that despite the FirePro’s newer architecture and higher theoretical FP32 output (691.2 GFLOPS versus 595.2 GFLOPS), the GTX 560M delivers better real-world compute results.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the GTX 560M’s score of 4855 places it just 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (score 4844) and 0.2% behind the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX (score 4867). It also trails the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 by 0.8% and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB by 0.9%. The FirePro W4190M’s score of 4505 puts it 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (score 4499) but 1.2% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530 (score 4560) and 1.4% behind the AMD Radeon RX 560 (score 4569). These rival comparisons show that both cards are firmly in the entry-level mobile segment, but the GTX 560M holds a slight edge over its closest competitor while the FirePro W4190M struggles against integrated graphics solutions.

The 7.8% delta in the head-to-head is consistent with the percentile gap: the GTX 560M sits at the 28th percentile versus the FirePro’s 26th. The benchmark winner also has a higher average benchmark score of 4855 versus 4505, reinforcing that this is not a statistical fluke but a consistent performance gap.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute workloads?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M is faster, scoring 4855 in Geekbench OpenCL compared to the AMD FirePro W4190M’s 4505, a 7.8% advantage.

Q: Does the AMD FirePro W4190M support Vulkan?

A: Yes, the FirePro W4190M supports Vulkan version 1.2.170. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M has no listed Vulkan support.

Q: How much memory does each card have?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M has 1536 MB of GDDR5 memory, while the AMD FirePro W4190M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory.

Q: What is the transistor density difference between the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M has a transistor density of 4.9 million per square millimeter on a 238 mm² die, while the AMD FirePro W4190M has a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter on a 77 mm² die.

Q: Which card has more shading units?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M has 384 shading units, exactly double the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M’s 192 shading units.

Q: What are the directx versions supported by each card?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the AMD FirePro W4190M supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for raw performance: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 7.8% and holds a higher percentile ranking at 28 versus 26. Its superior TMU and ROP counts (32 and 24 respectively versus 24 and 8 for the AMD) likely contribute to its OpenCL victory, despite having fewer shading units. Anyone running compute-heavy applications that rely on OpenCL should pick the GTX 560M without hesitation.

However, the AMD FirePro W4190M is the better option for users who need modern API support or more memory. Its Vulkan 1.2.170 support and DirectX 12 (11_1) are significant advantages over the GTX 560M’s lack of Vulkan and older DirectX 12 (11_0). The 2 GB memory capacity is also beneficial for workloads that exceed the GTX 560M’s 1536 MB frame buffer. The FirePro’s higher theoretical FP32 performance (691.2 GFLOPS) and newer 28 nm process node suggest it has untapped potential in workloads that leverage its architecture differently than the OpenCL test does.

For most users, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M is the safer bet based on measured benchmark results. The AMD FirePro W4190M appeals only to those with specific requirements for Vulkan support or larger memory capacity. The GTX 560M’s 7.8% lead in the benchmark is decisive, and its nearest rival comparisons — sitting within 1% of cards like the GeForce 940MX and Radeon R6 M255DX — show it performs competitively within its class. The FirePro W4190M, by contrast, trails integrated graphics like the Intel HD Graphics P530 by 1.2%, which is a poor sign for a discrete GPU.

Specification Differences

The two cards differ across nearly every specification category. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M uses the GF116 chip with Fermi 2.0 architecture, while the AMD FirePro W4190M uses the Opal chip with GCN 1.0 architecture. The process nodes differ: 40 nm for NVIDIA versus 28 nm for AMD. Transistor counts are 1,170 million versus 950 million, and die sizes are 238 mm² versus 77 mm², giving transistor densities of 4.9M/mm² and 12.3M/mm² respectively.

Clock speeds show the AMD card with explicit base and boost clocks of 825 MHz and 900 MHz, while the NVIDIA card has no listed base or boost clocks. Memory clocks are 625 MHz (2.5 Gbps effective) for the GTX 560M versus 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective) for the FirePro. Memory configurations differ in size (1536 MB versus 2 GB) and bus width (192-bit versus 128-bit), though bandwidth is close at 60.00 GB/s versus 64.00 GB/s.

Shading units are 192 for NVIDIA versus 384 for AMD. TMUs are 32 versus 24, and ROPs are 24 versus 8. Pixel rates are 6.200 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s, while texture rates are 24.80 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. FP32 performance is 595.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS. The GTX 560M has a TDP of 75 W, while the FirePro has no listed TDP. Bus interfaces differ: MXM-B (3.0) for NVIDIA versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for AMD. API support diverges on DirectX (12 (11_0) versus 12 (11_1)) and Vulkan (none versus 1.2.170), with both supporting OpenGL 4.6. Release dates are 2011-05-29 for NVIDIA and 2015-11-11 for AMD.