AMD FirePro W4190M vs NVIDIA GeForce MX110 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher Geekbench OpenCL score?

A: The AMD FirePro W4190M scores 4505, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 scores 4255. This gives AMD a 5.9% lead in the recorded OpenCL benchmark.

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

A: The FirePro W4190M sits at the 26th percentile of all GPUs. It is nearly tied with the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499, 0.1% ahead), but trails the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, 1.2% behind) and the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569, 1.4% behind).

Q: Where does the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 rank relative to its competition?

A: The MX110 sits at the 23rd percentile of all GPUs. Its average benchmark score of 3834 places it just 0.3% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 (3823) and 1.1% ahead of the Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792), while it trails the AMD Radeon R5 Graphics (3883) by 1.2%.

Q: What are the memory differences between the two cards?

A: Both cards have 2 GB of GDDR5 memory, but the FirePro W4190M uses a 128-bit bus with 64.00 GB/s bandwidth, while the MX110 uses a 64-bit bus with 40.10 GB/s bandwidth. The MX110 has a higher effective memory speed at 5 Gbps versus 4 Gbps.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 has a transistor density of 13.2M per mm², compared to 12.3M per mm² for the AMD FirePro W4190M. Both chips are fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC and share the same 77 mm² die size.

Q: Are both GPUs still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life products. The AMD FirePro W4190M was released in November 2015, and the NVIDIA GeForce MX110 was released in November 2017.

Architecture Differences

The AMD FirePro W4190M and NVIDIA GeForce MX110 represent two distinct architectural approaches from their respective manufacturers. The FirePro W4190M is built on AMD's GCN 1.0 architecture with the Opal chip, while the MX110 uses NVIDIA's Maxwell architecture with the GM108S chip. Both are manufactured on a 28 nm process at TSMC, and both chips measure exactly 77 mm² in die size. However, the transistor counts differ slightly: the AMD chip packs 950 million transistors, while the NVIDIA chip contains 1,020 million, resulting in a density of 12.3M per mm² for AMD and 13.2M per mm² for NVIDIA.

The compute resource allocation diverges significantly. The FirePro W4190M fields 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The MX110 has fewer of each: 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. This structural difference explains the FirePro's higher texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s versus the MX110's 16.10 GTexel/s. The pixel rates tell a different story: the MX110 achieves 8.048 GPixel/s, slightly ahead of the FirePro's 7.200 GPixel/s, despite having the same ROP count, because of its higher clock speeds.

Clock behavior also differs. The FirePro W4190M runs at a base clock of 825 MHz and boosts to 900 MHz. The MX110 starts higher at 978 MHz and boosts to 1006 MHz. These higher clocks help the NVIDIA part compensate for its smaller compute array. In terms of floating-point performance, the AMD card delivers 691.2 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, while the MX110 delivers 515.1 GFLOPS. Neither GPU has dedicated ray tracing or tensor cores, and neither supports FP16 compute as a separate specification.

The memory subsystem shows a notable split. Both use 2 GB of GDDR5, but the FirePro W4190M employs a 128-bit bus, yielding 64.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The MX110 uses a 64-bit bus, cutting bandwidth to 40.10 GB/s. The MX110 compensates with a higher effective memory clock of 5 Gbps versus 4 Gbps on the FirePro, but the narrower bus limits its overall throughput.

API support also separates the pair. The FirePro W4190M supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. The MX110 supports DirectX 12 (11_0), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The NVIDIA part has a newer Vulkan implementation, while the AMD part has a slightly higher DirectX feature level.

The form factors differ as well. The FirePro W4190M is an MXM module, while the MX110 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor). Both use PCIe 3.0, but with different lane counts: the FirePro uses x8, and the MX110 uses x4. Both have no power connectors, and both have display outputs described as portable device dependent.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward decision for compute workloads. The AMD FirePro W4190M wins the only recorded head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, with a score of 4505 versus 4255 for the MX110. That 5.9% advantage, combined with the FirePro's higher FP32 throughput (691.2 GFLOPS versus 515.1 GFLOPS), higher texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s versus 16.10 GTexel/s), and double the memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s versus 40.10 GB/s), makes it the stronger choice for raw computational tasks.

However, the MX110 is not without merit. Its higher base and boost clocks (978 MHz and 1006 MHz versus 825 MHz and 900 MHz) give it a slight edge in pixel rate: 8.048 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s. Its transistor density is also higher, and it supports a newer Vulkan version (1.4 versus 1.2.170). The MX110 has a lower TDP of 30 W, though the FirePro's TDP is not recorded in the database.

The percentile rankings place the FirePro W4190M at the 26th percentile of all GPUs, three points above the MX110's 23rd percentile. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: the FirePro averages 4505, while the MX110 averages 3834, a gap driven partly by the MX110's lower Vulkan score of 3413. For users prioritizing compute performance, the FirePro W4190M is the clear pick. For those needing a lower-power integrated solution with a newer Vulkan implementation, the MX110 has its place.

Specification Differences

| Specification | AMD FirePro W4190M | NVIDIA GeForce MX110 |

|---|---|---|

| Chip | Opal | GM108S |

| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Maxwell |

| Transistors | 950 million | 1,020 million |

| Transistor Density | 12.3M / mm² | 13.2M / mm² |

| Base Clock | 825 MHz | 978 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 900 MHz | 1006 MHz |

| Memory Clock | 1000 MHz, 4 Gbps effective | 1253 MHz, 5 Gbps effective |

| Memory Bus Width | 128 bit | 64 bit |

| Memory Bandwidth | 64.00 GB/s | 40.10 GB/s |

| Shading Units | 384 | 256 |

| TMUs | 24 | 16 |

| Pixel Rate | 7.200 GPixel/s | 8.048 GPixel/s |

| Texture Rate | 21.60 GTexel/s | 16.10 GTexel/s |

| FP32 | 691.2 GFLOPS | 515.1 GFLOPS |

| TDP | Not recorded | 30 W |

| Slot Width | MXM Module | IGP |

| Bus Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x4 |

| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 (11_0) |

| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.4 |

| Release Date | November 2015 | November 2017 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database contains one direct comparison between the AMD FirePro W4190M and the NVIDIA GeForce MX110. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the FirePro W4190M scores 4505, while the MX110 scores 4255. The AMD part wins by 5.9%, a meaningful margin in the context of their nearest rivals.

To interpret this result, consider the rival context for each card. The FirePro W4190M's score of 4505 puts it within 0.1% of the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499) and 1.2% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560). The MX110's OpenCL score of 4255 is not directly comparable to its average benchmark score of 3834, which includes its Vulkan result of 3413. The Vulkan score drags the MX110's average down significantly.

The FirePro W4190M's win in OpenCL aligns with its hardware advantages. Its 384 shading units and 24 TMUs outnumber the MX110's 256 shading units and 16 TMUs. Its FP32 throughput of 691.2 GFLOPS is 34% higher than the MX110's 515.1 GFLOPS. Its memory bandwidth of 64.00 GB/s is 60% higher than the MX110's 40.10 GB/s. These structural advantages translate directly into the 5.9% OpenCL victory.

The MX110 does have a counterpoint in the pixel rate category. Its 8.048 GPixel/s exceeds the FirePro's 7.200 GPixel/s by about 12%. This comes from the MX110's higher clock speeds, which allow its 8 ROPs to work faster. In a fill-rate-bound scenario, the MX110 would have a narrow edge, but the database's only recorded benchmark does not test this.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W4190M wins in compute-heavy workloads. The Geekbench OpenCL result is the only head-to-head benchmark, and the FirePro takes it decisively. Its higher FP32 output (691.2 GFLOPS), faster texture rate (21.60 GTexel/s), and doubled memory bandwidth (64.00 GB/s) all support compute tasks such as general-purpose GPU processing, texture-heavy rendering, and memory-intensive operations. The FirePro also holds an advantage in DirectX feature level (12 11_1 versus 12 11_0), which may matter for certain legacy applications.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX110 wins in efficiency-oriented scenarios. Its TDP is recorded at 30 W, while the FirePro's TDP is not listed, but the MX110's IGP form factor and lower clock-dependent power profile suggest it fits more easily into thin-and-light systems. Its higher pixel rate (8.048 GPixel/s) gives it a small edge in fill-rate-bound tasks. Its newer Vulkan support (1.4 versus 1.2.170) may benefit applications that rely on the latest Vulkan extensions.

The percentile data reinforces the FirePro's overall standing. At the 26th percentile, the FirePro ranks above the MX110's 23rd percentile. The FirePro's average score of 4505 is 17.5% higher than the MX110's average of 3834. Even the MX110's OpenCL score of 4255, its better benchmark, falls short of the FirePro's 4505.

For users choosing between these two end-of-life mobile GPUs, the decision hinges on workload. Compute and bandwidth-sensitive tasks favor the FirePro W4190M. Clock-sensitive, fill-rate-bound tasks, along with a preference for newer Vulkan support, favor the MX110. The database records only one benchmark where the two meet, and the AMD part wins it.