AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M and AMD FirePro W4190M represent two very different mobile GPU philosophies, and the benchmark data confirms a decisive performance gap. Based on the available head-to-head and individual benchmark results, the GTX 970M holds a commanding lead across every measurable metric, though the FirePro W4190M occupies a distinct niche in the mobile workstation space.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct head-to-head benchmark available in the data is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is stark. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 18,946 points, while the AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4,505 points. This translates to a 320.6% advantage for the GTX 970M — more than four times the raw compute performance in this OpenCL workload. The delta is so large that it effectively places these two products in different performance classes, despite both being mobile MXM modules from the same era.

Looking at broader benchmark suites, the GTX 970M's dominance continues. In Passmark G3D, the GTX 970M scores 5,704 points, placing it at the 27th percentile of all GPUs. The FirePro W4190M's only available benchmark beyond Geekbench is its average score of 4,505, which puts it at the 26th percentile. While the percentile rankings look similar, the absolute scores tell a different story: the GTX 970M's Passmark G3D score of 5,704 is significantly higher than the FirePro's Geekbench OpenCL average of 4,505, and in the one test where they directly compete, the GTX 970M wins by 320.6%.

The GTX 970M also shows strength in legacy DirectX workloads. Its Passmark DirectX 9 score of 99 points and DirectX 10 score of 28 points demonstrate reasonable compatibility with older APIs. The FirePro W4190M has no corresponding Passmark data in the fact pack, so direct comparison in those tests is not possible. However, the GTX 970M's Passmark GPU Compute score of 2,289 indicates solid general-purpose compute performance, while the FirePro's compute capabilities are only represented by the Geekbench OpenCL result of 4,505.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M than the AMD FirePro W4190M in OpenCL?

A: The GTX 970M scores 18,946 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the FirePro W4190M scores 4,505. This gives the GTX 970M a 320.6% performance advantage in that specific test.

Q: What are the nearest rivals for each GPU based on average benchmark scores?

A: The GTX 970M's nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro M3000M with an average score of 4,621, just 0.2% lower. The FirePro W4190M's nearest rival is the AMD Radeon R7 M260 with an average score of 4,499, just 0.1% higher. Notably, both GPUs have the AMD Radeon R5 M230 as a nearby competitor, with the GTX 970M being 1.1% ahead and the FirePro being 1.6% behind.

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

A: The GTX 970M has an average benchmark score of 4,628, while the FirePro W4190M has an average benchmark score of 4,505. These averages are derived from different test suites, so direct comparison should be treated with caution.

Q: Does the FirePro W4190M have any benchmark where it beats the GTX 970M?

A: No. In the single head-to-head benchmark (Geekbench OpenCL), the GTX 970M wins. The FirePro W4190M has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison, while the GTX 970M has one win.

Q: How do the percentile rankings compare between the two GPUs?

A: The GTX 970M is at the 27th percentile of all GPUs, while the FirePro W4190M is at the 26th percentile. Despite the massive performance gap in absolute terms, both GPUs sit in a similar low percentile range, indicating that neither is competitive with modern high-end hardware.

Q: What are the memory specifications of each GPU?

A: The GTX 970M features 6 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 192-bit bus with 120.3 GB/s bandwidth. The FirePro W4190M has 2 GB of GDDR5 memory on a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth — the GTX 970M offers triple the capacity and nearly double the bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M uses the GM204 chip based on Maxwell 2.0 architecture, while the AMD FirePro W4190M uses the Opal chip based on GCN 1.0. Both are fabricated on TSMC's 28 nm process, but the similarities end there.

The GTX 970M's GM204 die measures 398 mm² and contains 5,200 million transistors, resulting in a transistor density of 13.1 million per square millimeter. The FirePro W4190M's Opal die is dramatically smaller at 77 mm² with just 950 million transistors, giving a density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. This die size difference — 398 mm² versus 77 mm² — explains much of the performance gap, as the GTX 970M has far more silicon area dedicated to compute resources.

The core configurations differ substantially. The GTX 970M packs 1,280 shading units, 80 texture mapping units, and 48 raster operation units. The FirePro W4190M has only 384 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This means the GTX 970M has over three times the shading units, over three times the TMUs, and six times the ROPs. The pixel rate tells the same story: the GTX 970M achieves 49.82 GPixel/s versus the FirePro's 7.200 GPixel/s. Texture rate is 83.04 GTexel/s for the GTX 970M versus 21.60 GTexel/s for the FirePro.

Compute throughput follows the same pattern. The GTX 970M delivers 2.657 TFLOPS of FP32 performance, while the FirePro W4190M manages 691.2 GFLOPS — the GTX 970M is roughly 3.8 times faster in raw floating-point throughput. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, as both predate those technologies.

API support also differs. The GTX 970M supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the FirePro W4190M supports DirectX 12 (11_1) — a feature-level difference that may impact compatibility with newer DirectX 12 titles. Both support OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan support differs: the GTX 970M supports Vulkan 1.4, while the FirePro W4190M is limited to Vulkan 1.2.170.

Specification Differences

The clock speeds reflect the different design philosophies. The GTX 970M runs at a base clock of 924 MHz with a boost clock of 1038 MHz, while the FirePro W4190M operates at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the GTX 970M runs its GDDR5 at 1253 MHz (5 Gbps effective), while the FirePro runs at 1000 MHz (4 Gbps effective).

Memory capacity and bandwidth are major differentiators. The GTX 970M offers 6 GB of GDDR5 on a 192-bit bus, delivering 120.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The FirePro W4190M offers just 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 128-bit bus, delivering 64.00 GB/s. The GTX 970M has triple the memory capacity and 88% more bandwidth.

The bus interfaces differ as well. The GTX 970M uses MXM-B (3.0), while the FirePro W4190M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. Both are MXM modules with no power connectors and portable-device-dependent display outputs. Neither has a launch MSRP listed in the data.

Release dates are separated by about a year: the GTX 970M launched in October 2014, while the FirePro W4190M launched in November 2015. Both are now end-of-life products. The GTX 970M's predecessor is the GeForce 800M and its successor is the GeForce 10 Mobile series. The FirePro W4190M's predecessor is FirePro Mobility and its successor is Radeon Pro Mobile.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture: the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M is the overwhelmingly faster GPU. In the only direct head-to-head benchmark, it leads by 320.6%. Its architecture advantages — more shading units, more ROPs, higher clock speeds, larger memory bus, and greater bandwidth — all contribute to this result. The GTX 970M's 27th percentile ranking versus the FirePro's 26th percentile may look similar, but the absolute scores reveal that the GTX 970M is in a different performance tier entirely.

Buyers seeking raw graphics performance should choose the GTX 970M without hesitation. Its 6 GB memory capacity, 192-bit bus, and 2.657 TFLOPS of FP32 compute make it suitable for demanding gaming and compute workloads. The FirePro W4190M, by contrast, offers 2 GB memory, a 128-bit bus, and 691.2 GFLOPS — specifications that suggest it is intended for basic professional tasks rather than performance-intensive applications.

However, the FirePro W4190M is not without merit. Its smaller die (77 mm² versus 398 mm²) means it likely consumes less power and generates less heat, though the fact pack does not include TDP figures to confirm this. Its GCN 1.0 architecture, while older, may offer specific workstation-oriented features that the Maxwell 2.0 architecture lacks, though the fact pack does not detail such features. The FirePro's Vulkan 1.2.170 support, while lower than the GTX 970M's Vulkan 1.4, still provides modern API access.

For users who prioritize benchmark scores and performance, the choice is unambiguous. The GTX 970M wins every benchmark where both are tested, and its nearest rivals (Quadro M3000M at 0.2% lower average score) are fundamentally different products. The FirePro W4190M's nearest rivals — the Radeon R7 M260, Intel HD Graphics P530, and Radeon RX 560 — all have average scores within 1.6% of its 4,505, placing it in a much lower performance bracket. The GTX 970M's average score of 4,628 versus the FirePro's 4,505 may suggest near-parity, but the head-to-head Geekbench OpenCL result of 18,946 versus 4,505 reveals the true scale of the performance difference.