AMD FirePro W4190M vs AMD FirePro W5130M Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clear overall winner in the AMD FirePro W5130M, which takes the only head-to-head benchmark in the database. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the W5130M scores 4904 points against 4505 points for the W4190M, a delta of 8.9%. That is a decisive margin for a single test, and it places the W5130M in a higher performance tier. The W5130M’s score is also closer to the performance of much newer parts, such as the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB, which scores 4901 points (a delta of just 0.1%). In contrast, the W4190M sits near the AMD Radeon R7 M260, which scores 4499 points (a delta of 0.1%). The W5130M is therefore not merely faster; it is meaningfully closer to modern GPU territory, while the W4190M is anchored to older, lower-end competition.

The 8.9% advantage in OpenCL is not a small gap in the context of these two parts. For compute workloads that rely on OpenCL, the W5130M will complete tasks measurably sooner. The W4190M, however, is not without its own comparison points. Its nearest rival, the AMD Radeon R7 M260, is essentially tied at 4499 points, which suggests the W4190M delivers performance consistent with that class. The W5130M, by contrast, is 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893 points) and only 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929 points) and AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931 points). This means the W5130M is competitive with a slightly higher tier of mobile GPUs, while the W4190M is competitive with a lower tier. The percentile data reinforces this: the W5130M ranks in the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the W4190M ranks in the 26th percentile. That three-point percentile gap is small in absolute terms, but it reflects the W5130M’s consistent edge in the single measured benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in OpenCL compute performance?

A: The AMD FirePro W5130M scores 4904 points in Geekbench OpenCL, which is 8.9% higher than the AMD FirePro W4190M’s 4505 points. The W5130M wins the only head-to-head benchmark in the database.

Q: How does each GPU compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The W5130M is 0.1% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901 points), 0.2% ahead of the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893 points), and 0.5% behind the AMD Radeon R7 M265 (4929 points) and AMD Radeon R7 M360 (4931 points). The W4190M is 0.1% ahead of the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499 points) and 1.2% to 1.6% behind the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560 points), AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569 points), and AMD Radeon R5 M230 (4577 points).

Q: What is the memory configuration of each GPU?

A: Both GPUs feature 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with a 128 bit bus width and 64.00 GB/s bandwidth. The memory clock is also identical at 1000 MHz with 4 Gbps effective.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same API levels?

A: Yes, both support DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170. There is no API advantage for either part.

Q: Which GPU has a higher pixel and texture fill rate?

A: The W5130M has a pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 29.60 GTexel/s. The W4190M has a pixel rate of 7.200 GPixel/s and a texture rate of 21.60 GTexel/s. The W5130M is roughly twice as fast in pixel throughput and about 37% faster in texture throughput.

Q: What is the release date difference between the two?

A: The W5130M was released on 2015-10-01, while the W4190M was released on 2015-11-11. Both are end-of-life products with the same predecessor (FirePro Mobility) and successor (Radeon Pro Mobile).

Architecture Differences

Both GPUs are built on GCN 1.0 architecture and use a 28 nm process at TSMC, but the underlying chips are distinct. The W5130M uses the Tropo chip, which contains 1,500 million transistors on a die size of 123 mm². The W4190M uses the Opal chip, which contains 950 million transistors on a die size of 77 mm². The transistor density is nearly identical (12.2M / mm² for the W5130M versus 12.3M / mm² for the W4190M), which means the W5130M’s advantage comes from having a larger chip with more transistors, not from a denser design. The W5130M also has a higher transistor count by 550 million, which directly translates into more compute resources.

The compute units differ in scale. The W5130M has 512 shading units, 32 texture mapping units, and 16 ROPs. The W4190M has 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The W5130M thus has 33% more shading units, 33% more TMUs, and twice the ROP count. This ROP difference is significant for pixel-heavy workloads, as the W5130M’s pixel rate of 14.80 GPixel/s is more than double the W4190M’s 7.200 GPixel/s. The texture rate difference is smaller in relative terms: 29.60 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s, a 37% gap. The FP32 compute output follows the shading unit count: the W5130M delivers 947.2 GFLOPS, while the W4190M delivers 691.2 GFLOPS.

The bus interface also differs. The W5130M uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the W4190M uses PCIe 3.0 x8. This is a notable architectural distinction, as the W5130M has double the PCIe lanes available for data transfer to the host system. The W4190M is specified as an MXM Module with no power connectors and display outputs that are portable device dependent, while the W5130M does not list these fields. Both share the same API support, memory type, and memory clock. The core clocks are close: the W5130M runs at 900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost, while the W4190M runs at 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost. The W5130M’s higher base clock and slightly higher boost clock contribute to its performance edge, but the larger chip and more compute units are the primary differentiators.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in several measurable specifications. The chip is different: Tropo for the W5130M versus Opal for the W4190M. The W5130M has 1,500 million transistors, while the W4190M has 950 million. The die size is 123 mm² versus 77 mm². The base clock is 900 MHz versus 825 MHz, and the boost clock is 925 MHz versus 900 MHz. The shading unit count is 512 versus 384, the TMU count is 32 versus 24, and the ROP count is 16 versus 8. The pixel rate is 14.80 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s, and the texture rate is 29.60 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s. The FP32 compute is 947.2 GFLOPS versus 691.2 GFLOPS.

The bus interface is PCIe 3.0 x16 for the W5130M and PCIe 3.0 x8 for the W4190M. The W4190M is listed as an MXM Module with no power connectors and portable device dependent display outputs, while the W5130M does not have these fields recorded. The release dates differ: 2015-10-01 for the W5130M and 2015-11-11 for the W4190M. The Geekbench OpenCL score is 4904 versus 4505, and the percentile is 29 versus 26. The average benchmark score follows the same pattern: 4904 versus 4505. The memory size, type, bus width, bandwidth, memory clock, API support, process node, foundry, architecture, generation, and production status are identical.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD FirePro W5130M wins the only recorded benchmark, so its advantage is straightforward: it is faster in OpenCL compute by 8.9%. The W5130M also has a substantial lead in pixel rate (14.80 GPixel/s versus 7.200 GPixel/s), which makes it the better choice for any workload that stresses ROP throughput, such as high-resolution rendering or heavy fragment shading. Its texture rate is also higher (29.60 GTexel/s versus 21.60 GTexel/s), and its FP32 compute is 37% higher. The W5130M further benefits from a PCIe x16 interface versus x8, which can reduce data transfer bottlenecks in compute tasks that stream large datasets.

The AMD FirePro W4190M wins in no recorded benchmark, but it has one practical advantage in the specification list: it is an MXM Module with no power connectors, which may make it easier to integrate into certain portable chassis designs. Its display outputs are portable device dependent, which suggests flexibility in laptop implementations. The W4190M also has a slightly higher transistor density (12.3M / mm² versus 12.2M / mm²), though this is negligible in practice. For compute performance, the W4190M is closer to the AMD Radeon R7 M260 (4499 points) and slightly behind the Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560 points), so it sits in a lower performance bracket. The W5130M, by contrast, is competitive with the AMD Radeon R7 M265 and R7 M360, which score 4929 and 4931 points respectively.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the AMD FirePro W5130M is the stronger GPU. It wins the only head-to-head benchmark by 8.9%, and its specification sheet shows a consistent advantage across every compute-related metric. The W5130M has more shading units (512 versus 384), more TMUs (32 versus 24), double the ROPs (16 versus 8), higher clocks (900 MHz base and 925 MHz boost versus 825 MHz base and 900 MHz boost), and a wider PCIe interface (x16 versus x8). Its FP32 output of 947.2 GFLOPS is 37% higher than the W4190M’s 691.2 GFLOPS, and its pixel rate is more than double. For any user prioritizing OpenCL compute performance, the W5130M is the clear pick.

The W4190M is not without a role, but that role is limited to systems where its MXM Module form factor and lack of power connectors are required. It is a lower-power, smaller-chip alternative (77 mm² versus 123 mm²) that trades compute capability for integration flexibility. Its performance is still adequate for its class, as shown by its parity with the AMD Radeon R7 M260 and its proximity to the Intel HD Graphics P530. However, the W4190M loses on every benchmark and every relevant compute specification. The percentile ranking (26th versus 29th) confirms that the W4190M sits lower in the overall GPU distribution.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the W5130M is the better investment for any workload that involves OpenCL acceleration, 3D rendering, or compute-heavy tasks. The W4190M should only be selected if the hardware form factor or power connector constraints of the host system require it. The recorded data is unambiguous: the W5130M is faster, and the W4190M is more portable in design but not in performance.