AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison recorded in the database is the Geekbench OpenCL test. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M scores 5,604 points, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4,505 points. That gives NVIDIA a 24.4% advantage, a decisive margin in compute workloads. The GTX 760M wins this head-to-head contest 1 to 0.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the GTX 760M also has a Vulkan score of 4,868, a figure the FirePro W4190M cannot match because no Vulkan result is recorded for it. The GTX 760M's average benchmark score sits at 5,236, which places it in the 31st percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro W4190M averages 4,505, putting it in the 26th percentile. That 5-point percentile gap may seem modest, but it reflects a real performance tier difference between the two mobile parts.

The GTX 760M's nearest rivals help contextualize its standing. The NVIDIA Quadro 4000M averages 5,211, which is just 0.5% behind the GTX 760M. The GeForce 940M scores 5,284, putting it 0.9% ahead. The GeForce GTX 980M averages 5,308, 1.3% higher. Even the AMD Radeon R7 M260X, at 5,161, trails the GTX 760M by only 1.5%. The GTX 760M sits in a tight cluster where small score differences separate adjacent products.

The FirePro W4190M's nearest rivals tell a similar story but at a lower performance level. The AMD Radeon R7 M260 scores 4,499, just 0.1% behind the FirePro. Intel HD Graphics P530 averages 4,560, which is 1.2% ahead. The AMD Radeon RX 560 scores 4,569, 1.4% higher. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 averages 4,577, 1.6% ahead. The FirePro W4190M is the near-bottom of its immediate peer group, while the GTX 760M sits closer to the middle of its own.

Where Each One Wins

The GTX 760M wins the compute workload outright. Its OpenCL score of 5,604 versus 4,505 represents a 24.4% advantage, which is substantial for mobile GPUs that often differ by only a few percentage points from their rivals. The GTX 760M also demonstrates Vulkan capability with a recorded score of 4,868, giving it a second API benchmark result that the FirePro W4190M lacks entirely.

For users running OpenCL-accelerated applications, the GTX 760M is clearly the stronger choice. The data shows a performance lead that would translate into faster rendering, physics calculations, or other general-purpose GPU workloads. The Vulkan score, while not directly comparable to anything on the FirePro side, indicates the NVIDIA part has functional support for modern graphics APIs that the AMD part cannot match in measurable performance.

The FirePro W4190M does not win any recorded benchmark. Its only score, 4,505 in OpenCL, places it below the GTX 760M's result and below the average scores of all four of its nearest rivals. The FirePro's position in the 26th percentile versus the GTX 760M's 31st percentile reinforces that it is the slower part in this comparison.

Where the FirePro might still appeal is in scenarios where its feature set or driver certification matters more than raw compute numbers. The database lists it as part of the FirePro Mobile (Wx100M) generation, which targets professional mobile workstations. But from a pure benchmark perspective, the GTX 760M wins every measurable category.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural families. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK106S chip, built on a 28 nm process at TSMC. The AMD FirePro W4190M uses GCN 1.0 with the Opal chip, also on a 28 nm TSMC process. Both are end-of-life products, but they represent different design philosophies.

The transistor counts diverge significantly. The GTX 760M packs 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 11.5 million per mm². The FirePro W4190M uses 950 million transistors on a much smaller 77 mm² die, with a density of 12.3 million per mm². The NVIDIA chip is larger and more complex, which explains part of its performance advantage.

Shading unit counts reflect the architectural split. The GTX 760M has 768 shading units, 64 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The FirePro W4190M has 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA part has exactly double the shading units and more than double the TMUs, while having exactly double the ROPs. This hardware resource advantage shows up directly in the pixel rate and texture rate figures.

The GTX 760M achieves 11.50 GPixel/s pixel fill rate and 46.02 GTexel/s texture fill rate. The FirePro W4190M manages 7.200 GPixel/s and 21.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute rating for the GTX 760M is 1,104.4 GFLOPS, versus 691.2 GFLOPS for the FirePro. Clock speeds differ as well, with the GTX 760M running at 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost, while the FirePro runs at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. The AMD part has higher clocks but far fewer execution units, so the NVIDIA part still wins on throughput.

Memory configurations are similar. Both have 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus. The GTX 760M's memory runs at 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, yielding 64.13 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro's memory runs at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective, yielding 64.00 GB/s. The bandwidth difference is negligible, less than 1%.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M averages 5,236 points, while the AMD FirePro W4190M averages 4,505 points.

Q: What is the performance gap in the OpenCL benchmark?

A: The GTX 760M scores 5,604 versus 4,505 for the FirePro W4190M, a 24.4% difference in favor of NVIDIA.

Q: Do both GPUs support DirectX 12?

A: Yes, but with different feature levels. The GTX 760M supports DirectX 12 (11_0), while the FirePro W4190M supports DirectX 12 (11_1).

Q: Which GPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The FirePro W4190M runs at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost, while the GTX 760M runs at 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: They are nearly identical. The GTX 760M has 64.13 GB/s and the FirePro W4190M has 64.00 GB/s, both using 2 GB GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The GTX 760M has 768 shading units, exactly double the 384 shading units found in the FirePro W4190M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several key specification areas. Process node and foundry are the same: 28 nm at TSMC. Both use MXM Module slot width and have no power connectors. Both are end-of-life products with portable device dependent display outputs.

The chip designs diverge: the GTX 760M uses GK106S with 2,540 million transistors on 221 mm², while the FirePro W4190M uses Opal with 950 million transistors on 77 mm². Transistor density favors AMD at 12.3M per mm² versus 11.5M per mm², but the NVIDIA chip is far larger overall.

Clock speeds favor the FirePro: 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost versus 628 MHz base and 719 MHz boost for the GTX 760M. Memory clocks are essentially tied at 1002 MHz versus 1000 MHz, both with 4 Gbps effective.

Execution resources heavily favor NVIDIA: 768 versus 384 shading units, 64 versus 24 TMUs, 16 versus 8 ROPs. Pixel rate is 11.50 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 46.02 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. FP32 compute is 1,104.4 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS.

The bus interface differs: the GTX 760M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the FirePro W4190M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. API support shows minor differences in DirectX and Vulkan versions. The GTX 760M supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and Vulkan 1.2.175, while the FirePro supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6.

The GTX 760M has a TDP of 55 W, while no TDP is recorded for the FirePro W4190M. Release dates differ: the GTX 760M launched on 2013-05-29, and the FirePro W4190M launched on 2015-11-11. Their predecessors and successors also differ, with the GTX 760M coming after GeForce 600M and before GeForce 800M, while the FirePro comes after FirePro Mobility and before Radeon Pro Mobile.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760M is the faster GPU in this pairing. Its OpenCL score is 24.4% higher, its average benchmark score is 16.2% higher, and it sits in a higher percentile of all GPUs (31st versus 26th). The GTX 760M wins the only head-to-head benchmark recorded, and it has a Vulkan score that the FirePro cannot counter.

For users who need compute performance in mobile workstations or gaming laptops, the GTX 760M is the stronger choice. Its double shading unit count, higher texture and pixel rates, and greater FP32 throughput translate directly into better application performance. The FirePro W4190M, despite having higher clock speeds and a more recent launch date, cannot overcome its smaller execution resource pool.

The FirePro W4190M might still be relevant for users who specifically require AMD professional driver support or who are locked into an AMD-based ecosystem. Its GCN 1.0 architecture and FirePro branding target professional applications. However, no benchmark data in the database shows an area where the FirePro outperforms the GTX 760M.

Choose the GTX 760M if you want the higher performing mobile GPU. Choose the FirePro W4190M only if the AMD professional feature set is a hard requirement. The benchmark results do not support any other conclusion.